M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. Sp 39-40,Riico Industrial Area Kaladera, Jaipur v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR 1. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 205 / 2005 M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. SP 39-40,RIICO Industrial Area Kaladera, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With 2. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 206 / 2005 M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. SP 39-40, RIICO Industrial Area Kaladera, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Jaipur ----Respondent 3. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 10 / 2007 M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. SP 39-40, RIICO Industrial Area Kaladera, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 7(4), C-95, Sidhanath Bhawan Janpath Road, Lal Kothi Scheme Jaipur ----Respondent 4. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 55 / 2007 M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kaladera Tehsil: Chomu, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur ----Respondent 5. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 6 / 2008 M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kaladera Tehsil: Chomu, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur ----Respondent 6. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 7 / 2008 M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. SP 39-40, RIICO Industrial Area Kaladera, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 7(4), C-95, Sidhanath Bhawan Janpath Road, Lal Kothi Scheme Jaipur ----Respondent 7. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 540 / 2009 M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kaladera Tehsil: Chomu, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) ----Respondent 8. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 1 / 2014 M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (VSML) 5th Floor, Gaurav Towers Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Power of Attorney Holder, Ronak Chelaram Kumawat. ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS-2, Jaipur. ----Respondent 9. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 2 / 2014 M/s Vodafone Mobile Service Limited (VSML) 5th Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar Jaipur Through Its Power of Attorney Holder, Ronak Chelaram Kumawat. ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS-2, Jaipur. ----Respondent 10. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 3 / 2014 M/s Vodafone Mobile Service Limited (VSML) 5th Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar Jaipur Through Its Power of Attorney Holder, Ronak Chelaram Kumawat. ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS-2, Jaipur. ----Respondent 11. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 4 / 2014 M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (VSML) 5th Floor, Gaurav Towers Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Power of Attorney Holder, Ronak Chelaram Kumawat. ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS-2, Jaipur. ----Respondent 12. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 124 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 13. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 125 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 14. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 126 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 15. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 131 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 16. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 132 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 17. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 168 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus ----Respondent 14. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 126 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 15. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 131 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 16. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 132 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Tata Teleservices Limited, Guman-1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 17. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 168 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018 ----Respondent 18. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 169 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur -302018 ----Respondent 19. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 170 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018 ----Respondent 20. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 171 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018 ----Respondent 21. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur, ----Respondent 22. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd (Formerly Known As Idea TelecommunicationLtd.), 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 ----Respondent 23. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 45 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (tds) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd (Formerly Known As Idea TelecommunicationLtd.), 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 ----Respondent 24. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 48 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd (Formerly Known As Idea TelecommunicationLtd.), 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 ----Respondent 25. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 49 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd (Formerly Known As Idea TelecommunicationLtd.), 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 ----Respondent 26. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 96 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur ----Respondent 27. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 97 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur, ----Respondent 28. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 98 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur, ----Respondent 29. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 99 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 30. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 100 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 31. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 101 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 32. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 102 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus ----Respondent 29. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 99 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 30. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 100 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 31. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 101 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 32. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 102 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 33. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 103 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 34. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 104 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 35. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 105 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle office, 5[th] Floor, Gaurav Towers, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent 36. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 106 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur, ----Respondent 37. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 107 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur, ----Respondent 38. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 108 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent 39. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 199 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Idea Telecommunication Ltd.), 1-2, Jai Jawan Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018 ----Respondent 40. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 200 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bharati Hexacom Limited, K-21, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, ----Respondent 41. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 204 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited, K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur ----Respondent 42. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 209 / 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited, K-21 Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur ----Respondent 43. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 210 / 2016 COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus M/S BHARTI HEXACOM LIMITED K-21, MALVIYA MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR ----Respondent 44. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 217 / 2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus M/S IDEA CELLULAR LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IDEA TELECOMMUNICATION LTD.) 1-2, JAI JAWAN COLONY, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR-302018 ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Vohra, senior counsel with Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. P.K. Verma Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, senior counsel with Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Mr. Vaibhav Kasliwal and Ms Charu Pareek Mr. N.M. Ranka, senior counsel with Mr. N.K. Jain Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Mr. Prakul Khurana and Ms. Archana Mr. Akhil Simlote ----Appellant Versus M/S BHARTI HEXACOM LIMITED K-21, MALVIYA MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR ----Respondent 44. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 217 / 2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus M/S IDEA CELLULAR LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IDEA TELECOMMUNICATION LTD.) 1-2, JAI JAWAN COLONY, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR-302018 ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Vohra, senior counsel with Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. P.K. Verma Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, senior counsel with Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Mr. Vaibhav Kasliwal and Ms Charu Pareek Mr. N.M. Ranka, senior counsel with Mr. N.K. Jain Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Mr. Prakul Khurana and Ms. Archana Mr. Akhil Simlote For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. K.D. Mathur, Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Mr. Prateek Kedawat, Ms. Tanvi Sahai, Ms. Meenal Ghiya & Mr. Prabhansh Sharma _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 11/07/2017 1. All these appeals arise out of the judgments deliveredby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In some of the appeals, theassessee is the appellant and in some of the matters, theDepartment has come by way of appeals. However, time and againthe matter was adjourned and all these appeals are clubbed inview of the fact that questions of law involved in all these appealsare somewhat identical. 2.The basic question which was put forth for ourconsideration is whether the arrangement which has been workedout between the assessee company and the distributor (Agency)claimed by the Income Tax Department are covered under theprovisions of Sections 194 H and/or 194 J of the Income Tax Act. 3.To come out all these appeals, first of all, we will givethe questions which were posed in different appeals: 3.1 D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.205/2005 admitted on 30.08.2005. “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case the learned Tribunal was rightand justified in holding that assessee wasliable to withhold tax at source underS.194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961amounting to Rs.19,74,842/- (includinginterest) in respect of sales to itsdistributors, which are on a principal toprincipal basis and wherein property in thegoods is transferred to the distributors? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified inignoring the statutory books of accounts,the auditors report and the certificateissued by the auditors and merely relyingon the internal Management InformationSystem records in coming to the conclusionon the nature of the dealings with thedistributors? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in holding that interest underSs.201 (1A) and 220 (2) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 should be levied on the appellantwhen the taxes due had already been paidby the distributor(s)/ when a valid stay ofrecovery has been obtained? ” 3.2 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.206/2005 admitted on 31.08.2005. “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case the learned Tribunal was rightand justified in holding that assessee wasliable to withhold tax at source underS.194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961amounting to Rs.42,43,729/- (includinginterest) in respect of sales to itsdistributors, which are on a principal toprincipal basis and wherein property in thegoods is transferred to the distributors? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified inignoring the statutory books of accounts,the auditors report and the certificateissued by the auditors and merely relyingon the internal Management InformationSystem records in coming to the conclusionon the nature of the dealings with thedistributors? 3.2 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.206/2005 admitted on 31.08.2005. “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case the learned Tribunal was rightand justified in holding that assessee wasliable to withhold tax at source underS.194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961amounting to Rs.42,43,729/- (includinginterest) in respect of sales to itsdistributors, which are on a principal toprincipal basis and wherein property in thegoods is transferred to the distributors? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified inignoring the statutory books of accounts,the auditors report and the certificateissued by the auditors and merely relyingon the internal Management InformationSystem records in coming to the conclusionon the nature of the dealings with thedistributors? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in holding that interest underSs.201 (1A) and 220 (2) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 should be levied on the appellantwhen the taxes due had already been paidby the distributor(s)/ when a valid stay ofrecovery has been obtained?” 3.3 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.10/2007 admitted on 07.02.2007. “(a) Whether in the facts andcircumstances of the case the learnedTribunal was justified in holding theappellant as an assessee in default undersection 201 of the Act, for alleged failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194 Hof the Act in respect of sales to itsdistributors, which are on a principal toprincipal basis and wherein property in thegoods is transferred to the distributors? (b) Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, selectivereliance can be validly placed by theTribunal on the management InformationSystem records and other extraneousrecords on irrelevant considerations,ignoring statutory financial books ofaccount in arriving at any conclusion withregard to the character of dealingsbetweentheAppellantandthedistributors? (c) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in holding that interest undersection 201(1A) of the Act should be leviedon the Appellant when the taxes due hadalready been paid by the distributor(s)?" 3.4 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.55/2007 admitted on 26.10.2007. “(i) Whether the facts and circumstances ofthe case the learned Tribunal was right andjustified in holding that assessee was liableto withhold tax at source under section194H of the Income- tax Act, 1961amounting to Rs.19,74,842/ (includinginterest) in respect of sales of itsdistributors, which are on a principal toprincipal basis and where property in thegoods is transferred to the distributors? (ii) Whether the Tribunal justified inignoring the statutory books of accounts,the auditors report and the certificateissued by the auditors and merely relyingon the internal Management InformationSystem records in coming to the conclusionon the nature of the dealings with thedistributors?” 3.5 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.6/2008admitted on 11.03.2011. “(i). "WHETHER on the facts andcircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in not holding that the noticeproposing penalty is time barred andconsequently the order levying penaltyunder Section 271 C of the Act was void-ab-initio? (ii). WHETHER on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in upholding the levy ofpenalty under Section 271 C for the allegedfailure of the appellant to deduct tax atsource under Section 194H of the Act inrespect of sale of products to itsdistributors?” 3.6 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.7/2008admitted on 11.03.2011. 3.5 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.6/2008admitted on 11.03.2011. “(i). "WHETHER on the facts andcircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in not holding that the noticeproposing penalty is time barred andconsequently the order levying penaltyunder Section 271 C of the Act was void-ab-initio? (ii). WHETHER on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in upholding the levy ofpenalty under Section 271 C for the allegedfailure of the appellant to deduct tax atsource under Section 194H of the Act inrespect of sale of products to itsdistributors?” 3.6 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.7/2008admitted on 11.03.2011. “(i). WHETHER on the facts andcircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in not holding that the noticeproposing penalty is time barred andconsequently the order levying penaltyunder Section 271 C of the Act was void-ab-initio? (ii). WHETHER on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in upholding the levy ofpenalty under Section 271 C for the allegedfailure of the appellant to deduct tax atsource under Section 194H of the Act inrespect of sale of products to itsdistributors?” 3.7 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.540/2009admitted on 11.03.2011. “(i). WHETHER on the facts andcircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in not holding that the noticeproposing penalty is time barred andconsequently the order levying penaltyunder Section 271 C of the Act was void-ab-initio? (ii). WHETHER on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalerred in law in upholding the levy ofpenalty under Section 271 C for the allegedfailure of the appellant to deduct tax atsource under Section 194H of the Act inrespect of sale of products to itsdistributors?” 3.8 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.1/2014admitted on 27.01.2014. “1. whether on the facts & incircumstances of the case, the Tribunalerred in Taw in upholding the order of theCIT (A) treating the appellant as anassessee in default u/s 201(1), for allegedfailure to deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the Actin respect of discount. Allowed on pre-paidSIM cards and Talk time sold to pre-paiddistributors by the appellant? 2. whether against a deductor who fails todeduct the tax at source, the liability ofpayment of tax can also be fastened undersection 201 apart from Liability of interestand penalty? 3. Whether, according to section 191 readwith section 201, a deductor, who fails todeduct tax at source can be deemed to bean assessee in default without adverting tothe issue and recording a finding that theassessee who is liable to pay tax directlyhad not paid tax? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was correct inholding that the CIT(A) has no jurisdictionto set aside/restore the matter to theassessing officer. 5. Whether on the facts & in circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal erred in Law innot independently directing the AO to carryout such verification & delete the demandu/s. 201(1) of the Act in relation to incomeon which tax had been paid by the prepaiddistributors?" 3.9 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.2/2014admitted on 27.01.2014. “1. whether on the facts & incircumstances of the case, the Tribunalerred in Taw in upholding the order of theCIT (A) treating the appellant as anassessee in default u/s 201(1), for allegedfailure to deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the Actin respect of discount. Allowed on pre-paidSIM cards and Talk time sold to pre-paiddistributors by the appellant? 2. whether against a deductor who fails todeduct the tax at source, the liability ofpayment of tax can also be fastened undersection 201 apart from Liability of interestand penalty? 3.9 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.2/2014admitted on 27.01.2014. “1. whether on the facts & incircumstances of the case, the Tribunalerred in Taw in upholding the order of theCIT (A) treating the appellant as anassessee in default u/s 201(1), for allegedfailure to deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the Actin respect of discount. Allowed on pre-paidSIM cards and Talk time sold to pre-paiddistributors by the appellant? 2. whether against a deductor who fails todeduct the tax at source, the liability ofpayment of tax can also be fastened undersection 201 apart from Liability of interestand penalty? 3. Whether, according to section 191 readwith section 201, a deductor, who fails todeduct tax at source can be deemed to bean assessee in default without adverting tothe issue and recording a finding that theassessee who is liable to pay tax directlyhad not paid tax? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was correct inholding that the CIT(A) has no jurisdictionto set aside/restore the matter to theassessing officer. 5. Whether on the facts & in circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal erred in Law innot independently directing the AO to carryout such verification & delete the demandu/s. 201(1) of the Act in relation to incomeon which tax had been paid by the prepaiddistributors?" 3.10 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.3/2014admitted on 27.01.2014. “1. whether on the facts & incircumstances of the case, the Tribunalerred in Taw in upholding the order of theCIT (A) treating the appellant as anassessee in default u/s 201(1), for allegedfailure to deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the Actin respect of discount. Allowed on pre-paidSIM cards and Talk time sold to pre-paiddistributors by the appellant? 2. whether against a deductor who fails todeduct the tax at source, the liability ofpayment of tax can also be fastened undersection 201 apart from Liability of interestand penalty? 3. Whether, according to section 191 readwith section 201, a deductor, who fails todeduct tax at source can be deemed to bean assessee in default without adverting tothe issue and recording a finding that theassessee who is liable to pay tax directlyhad not paid tax? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was correct inholding that the CIT(A) has no jurisdictionto set aside/restore the matter to theassessing officer. 5. Whether on the facts & in circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal erred in Law innot independently directing the AO to carryout such verification & delete the demandu/s. 201(1) of the Act in relation to incomeon which tax had been paid by the prepaiddistributors?" 3.11 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.4/2014admitted on 27.01.2014. “1. whether on the facts & incircumstances of the case, the Tribunalerred in Taw in upholding the order of theCIT (A) treating the appellant as anassessee in default u/s 201(1), for allegedfailure to deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the Actin respect of discount. Allowed on pre-paidSIM cards and Talk time sold to pre-paiddistributors by the appellant? 2. whether against a deductor who fails todeduct the tax at source, the liability ofpayment of tax can also be fastened undersection 201 apart from Liability of interestand penalty? 3. Whether, according to section 191 readwith section 201, a deductor, who fails todeduct tax at source can be deemed to bean assessee in default without adverting tothe issue and recording a finding that theassessee who is liable to pay tax directlyhad not paid tax? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was correct inholding that the CIT(A) has no jurisdictionto set aside/restore the matter to theassessing officer. 5. Whether on the facts & in circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal erred in Law innot independently directing the AO to carryout such verification & delete the demandu/s. 201(1) of the Act in relation to incomeon which tax had been paid by the prepaiddistributors?" 3. Whether, according to section 191 readwith section 201, a deductor, who fails todeduct tax at source can be deemed to bean assessee in default without adverting tothe issue and recording a finding that theassessee who is liable to pay tax directlyhad not paid tax? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was correct inholding that the CIT(A) has no jurisdictionto set aside/restore the matter to theassessing officer. 5. Whether on the facts & in circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal erred in Law innot independently directing the AO to carryout such verification & delete the demandu/s. 201(1) of the Act in relation to incomeon which tax had been paid by the prepaiddistributors?" 3.12 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.124/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.13 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.125/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.14 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.126/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.15 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.131/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.16 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.132/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.17 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.168/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.17 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.168/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.18 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.169/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.19 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.170/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.20 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.171/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.21 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.195/2015admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.22 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.08/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.23 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.45/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. 3.22 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.08/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.23 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.45/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.24 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.48/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.25 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.49/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.26 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.96/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.27 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.97/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.28 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.98/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.28 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.98/2016admitted on 18.10.2016. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194-H of IT Act, as therelation between assessee and distributoris that of Principal to Agent? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194-J of the IT Act on roaming charges paid forfacility provided by service provider, as thisinterconnection is managed/ controlled/monitored by human intervention?" 3.29 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.99/2016admitted on 20.04.2017. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the IT Act, asthe relation between assessee anddistributor is that of principal to agent. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred in law indeleting the demand u/s. 201(1) for nondeduction of TDS u/s 194H on commissionpayment to various distributors. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194Jon roaming charges paid for facilityprovided by service provider as thisinterconnection is managed/controlledmonitored by human intervention. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, TDS u/s. 194J is applicable onroaming charges paid for facilities providedby service providers. 5. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred indeleting the interest u/s. 201(1A) on thetax demand raised under section 201(1) ofthe Act.” 3.30 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.100/2016admitted on 20.04.2017. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the IT Act, asthe relation between assessee anddistributor is that of principal to agent. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred in law indeleting the demand u/s. 201(1) for nondeduction of TDS u/s 194H on commissionpayment to various distributors. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194Jon roaming charges paid for facilityprovided by service provider as thisinterconnection is managed/controlled monitored by human intervention. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, TDS u/s. 194J is applicable onroaming charges paid for facilities providedby service providers. 5. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred indeleting the interest u/s. 201(1A) on thetax demand raised under section 201(1) ofthe Act.” 3.31 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.101/2016admitted on 20.04.2017. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the IT Act, asthe relation between assessee anddistributor is that of principal to agent. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred in law indeleting the demand u/s. 201(1) for nondeduction of TDS u/s 194H on commissionpayment to various distributors. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194Jon roaming charges paid for facilityprovided by service provider as thisinterconnection is managed/controlledmonitored by human intervention. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, TDS u/s. 194J is applicable onroaming charges paid for facilities providedby service providers. 5. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred indeleting the interest u/s. 201(1A) on thetax demand raised under section 201(1) ofthe Act. 3.32 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.102/2016admitted on 20.04.2017. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194Jon roaming charges paid for facilityprovided by service provider as thisinterconnection is managed/controlledmonitored by human intervention. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, TDS u/s. 194J is applicable onroaming charges paid for facilities providedby service providers. 5. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred indeleting the interest u/s. 201(1A) on thetax demand raised under section 201(1) ofthe Act. 3.32 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.102/2016admitted on 20.04.2017. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the IT Act, as the relation between assessee anddistributor is that of principal to agent. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred in law indeleting the demand u/s. 201(1) for nondeduction of TDS u/s 194H on commissionpayment to various distributors. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the TDS is applicable u/s. 194Jon roaming charges paid for facilityprovided by service provider as thisinterconnection is managed/controlledmonitored by human intervention. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, TDS u/s. 194J is applicable onroaming charges paid for facilities providedby service providers. 5. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred indeleting the interest u/s. 201(1A) on thetax demand raised under section 201(1) ofthe Act.” 3.33 D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO.103/2016admitted on 20.04.2017. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inholding that whether the assessee is liableto deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the IT Act, asthe relation between assessee anddistributor is that of principal to agent. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has erred in law indeleti