The Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

IAPL/14/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. concerning the non-deduction of tax at source on interest payments made to the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). The appeal was based on the provisions of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main legal questions pertained to the applicability of TDS on interest payments and whether YEIDA was exempt under specific notifications. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which the Commissioner contested. The court referenced decisions from the Supreme Court to address the raised questions and ultimately dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799861 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and Another vs. Canara Bank (2018) 406 ITR 161 (SC), New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals and other (2018) 406 ITR 209 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: POOJA AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV MAHAJAN
• Keywords: Exemption; Interest payment; Lease Rent; TDS; Industrial Development Authority
• Section: 194A; 260-A; 194-A (3) (iii) (f)

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 3 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 14 of 2018 Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax Respondent :- Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Mahajan Counsel for Respondent :- Pooja Agarwal Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Heard Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue and Ms. Shruti Taneja, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Revenue under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, dated 28.08.2017 passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 5167/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2014-15. By means of the present appeal, the following questions of law have been raised:- 1. \"Whether, on the facts of the case and in circumstances, the Hon'ble ITAT, was right in deleting the additions made by the A.O. u/s 194A for non deduction of tax at source on interest paid by the assessee to Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA)?\" 2. \"Whether the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) is covered under Notification No 3489 dated 22.10.1970 and is therefore entitled for benefit of exemption from TDS u/s 194-A (3) (iii) (f) of the Act?\" 3. \"Whether in the facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi has erred in holding that TDS u/s 194-A of the Act is not required to be made on the payment made by assessee to YEIDA in the form of lease rent?\" With respect to the first two questions, Shri Mahajan fairly states that the controversy involved in the questions framed, are fairly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and Another vs. Canara Bank (2018) 406 ITR 161 (SC). As to the third question, Shri Mahajan would submit that the Tribunal has erred in remitting the matter to the Assessing Authority to take a de-novo decision as in any case, the matter was decided in favour of the Revenue by the order of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals and other (2018) 406 ITR 209 (SC). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in view of the fair statement made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, the first two questions as raised in the memo of appeal, do not arise. As to the third question, we find that in the context of an open remand made by the Tribunal, it may be open to the Revenue as also to the assessee to rely on such and further law as they may be advised and that right may not be curtailed in any manner to the precedent considered by the Tribunal in its order making the remand. Therefore, we do not find the third question as raised is a substantial question of law. In view of the above, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 1.10.2021 Saurabh "