| Case ID |
0fb4c4a1-eeb8-4cce-a3c8-e1c7b87eb726 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. Nos. 30650 to 30652 of 2014 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 26, 2014 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 26, 2014 |
| Decision |
The Madras High Court partly allowed the writ petitions by directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the entire demand for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 within four weeks. If this condition is met, the remaining amount demanded would remain stayed until the disposal of the appeals. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to produce necessary records to support their claim of financial incapacity and did not establish a prima facie case for the stay of demand. The decision emphasized the need for the petitioner to comply with earlier orders and highlighted that the appeal against the similar issues was pending. The court's decision reflects a balance between the interests of the revenue and the rights of the taxpayer. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around Vodafone Cellular Ltd.'s challenge against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the demand for tax deductions at source (TDS) on commission payments linked to the sale of prepaid SIM cards. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting their stay petition against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The court considered arguments related to the nature of the transactions, which the petitioner claimed were on a principal-to-principal basis, thus exempting them from TDS obligations under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The court scrutinized the procedural aspects, including the failure of the petitioner to provide necessary accounts and financial records when required. The decision emphasized the importance of demonstrating a prima facie case when seeking a stay of tax demands, reflecting a broader trend in tax law where compliance and transparency are paramount. Notably, the court's ruling aligns with the ongoing discussions surrounding TDS provisions in the telecommunications sector and sets a precedent for similar future cases. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Vodafone Cellular Ltd.,
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Coimbatore
|
| Judges |
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Counsel,
Satish Parasaran,
T. Pramod Kumar Chopda
|
| Petitioners |
Vodafone Cellular Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Coimbatore
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 1734,
(2015) 370 ITR 750
|
| Other Citations |
M.S. Hameed v. Director of State Lotteries [2001] 249 ITR 186,
Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202,
Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 345 ITR 288,
Kerala State Stamp Vendors Association v. Office of The Accountant General [2006] 282 ITR 7,
CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association [2012] 348 ITR 378
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
133 A,
194H,
220(6),
201(1),
201(1A)
|