2014 (9) TMI 520 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
M/s. D. Ramakotaiah & Co. Versus Assistant commissioner of Income Tax
TDS Credit - treatment of TDS as income - relevant assessment year - Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the credit of tax deducted at source on the amounts paid on sub- contract works – Held that:- At the ti ......
2014 (8) TMI 807 - ITAT MUMBAI
DCIT 25(3), 308, C-11, Mumbai Versus Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil
Non-genuine purchases – Documentary evidences ignored – Supplier declared as hawala dealer – Held that:- AO had made the addition as one of the suppliers was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department - it was a good starting point for making fur ......
2012 (6) TMI 328 - ITAT DELHI
Pizza Hut International LLC C/o Dinesh Mehta & Co. Versus Deputy Director of Income-tax, Circle 2(1), International Taxation
DTAA between India and USA - Royalty income - taxability on gross basis or net basis - assessee opted for the provision contained under article 12 of DTAA contemplating taxation @ 15% of the "gross amounts" of royalties - Held that:- Term "Gross amou ......
2011 (3) TMI 202 - ITAT MUMBAI
Karan Johar Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 31, Mumbai
Disallowance - It was in the knowledge of the assessee that they have to bear the withholding tax liability even though Tata Elxsi has appointed DLF, a non resident concern for executing the work - it is clear that what is being paid by the Indian re ......
2010 (12) TMI 334 - ITAT, CHENNAI
ITO Versus Shri Anupallavi Finance & Investments
Non recognition of TDS as Income - Accrual basis of account - Claim of credit of TDS - Where tax has been deducted at source and paid to the Central Government and income is assessable over a number of years, credit for tax deducted at source shall b ......
2010 (8) TMI 756 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad Versus Hans Road Carriers (P.) Ltd.
Deduction of tax at source - Tax deducted is income received ......
........... on record to show that the amount of TDS was not deducted from the assessee and it was borne by somebody else. The only dispute is that the assessee instead of showing receipt of full freight and then showing the freight paid to truck operators/owners, has shown only the difference between the aforesaid two amounts as here income as because the payments of freight were directly collected by the truck drivers. In our considered opinion, this is simply a matter of presentation of accounts and merely for not presenting in the accounts, the amount of the gross freight and then freight paid to truck operator/owner separately, the claim of TDS cannot be denied to the assessee... 5.1 The view expressed by the Respected Co-ordinate Bench also buttress our humble understanding of law, as also supports the reasons assigned hereinabove, hence resultantly we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, therefore, hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
2009 (2) TMI 243 - ITAT DELHI-G
Satoru Tanaka. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
Refund Of Excess TDS By Employer ......
........... e purpose of computing the income of an assessee, shall not be deemed to be income received. 9.1 The aforesaid section in this case has no application as it applies to all sum deducted in accordance with the provisions of the chapter. In the first place the excess amount has not been deducted but paid by assessee s employer. Secondly, the amount deducted in excess of the amount deductible/payable, cannot be said to be a deduction in accordance with provisions of the Act. A wrong payment of excess amount cannot be said to be payment in accordance with provisions of the statute. Therefore, the said section has no application in this case. For all the reasons, we hold that Revenue authorities were wrong in bringing the amount in dispute to tax in the hands of the assessee. 10. In the light of above discussion, we hold that amount in question has been wrongly assessed in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside and appeals of the assessee are allowed.
2008 (4) TMI 141 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
AMICHAND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSTT.)
Book Profit - AO contend that T.D.S. on dividend had wrongly been excluded while showing the income from dividend - Accounting Standard come w.e.f. 1.4.95 - Therefore, the said Accounting Standard cannot have any role to play in interpreting the prov ......
2006 (7) TMI 107 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING
In case deductor fails to deduct tax at source, the deductee only would be liable to pay income tax on the amount received by him as income – Hence revenue is not justified to seek to levy interest for any period after the date on which the tax is ac ......
2005 (9) TMI 226 - ITAT BOMBAY-F
Smt. Varsha G. Salunke. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 31 (1).
Deduction Of Tax At Source ......
........... nated Shri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice-President (Mumbai Benches) as a Third Member to resolve the controversy. Shri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice President, has since vide his Order dated 27-9-2005, has agreed with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member, in his proposed order on this issue. Accordingly, inconformity with the majority view, we hold that the addition of Rs. 2,96,460.92 ps. is deleted and it is further held that the assessee was not be allowed to claim credit in respect of the TDS certificates for which the income has not been returned by her as a result of the method of accounting employed. The credit shall be carried forward and the assessee will get the credit for the present TDS certificates in the year in which she offers the income taxed on the basis of the method of accounting regularly employed. 3. The assessing authority is therefore directed to modify the assessment accordingly. 4. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
2004 (6) TMI 289 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Stallion Securities Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
Deduction Of Tax At Source ......
........... which an income has to be brought to tax, whereas the word assessed speaks of the factual position in which the income is assessed to tax. Since the Legislature has guardedly used the word assessable , it is the duty of the courts to assign proper meaning to that word, in which event the credit for TDS amount has to be given only in the year in which the dividend income is assessable and not in the year in which the dividend income was actually assessed to tax. In view of the plain language of the sections referred to above, and also on equitable consideration, we are of the firm view that though the dividend income was assessed to tax in the preceding assessment year, going by the legal position with regard to the year of assessability of dividend income, the assessee is entitled to claim credit for the TDS in terms of section 199 of the Act in the assessment year 1995-96. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
1994 (4) TMI 67 - BOMBAY High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Ambalal Kilachand
Tax Deducted At Source, Total Income ......
........... ourt judgment in the case of CIT v. Clive Insurance Co. Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 636 would govern the present case. Since the question in the present reference does not relate to double taxation relief, we refrain from expressing any view thereon. In the premises, the question which is referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 433 of 1982. The question referred to us in Income-tax Reference No. 130 of 1986 is as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tax deducted by the companies in the United Kingdom and paid into the Treasury in the United Kingdom after deducting the same from the dividends and interest on securities paid to the assessee in the United Kingdom, is includible in the chargeable income of the assessee ? This question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in both the matters. Certified copy expedited.
1990 (1) TMI 123 - ITAT GAUHATI
Daljit Family Trust. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
Tax At Source, Tax Deducted ......
........... 1961, would come into force in the State of Sikkim from the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1990-91, and the provisions of the Income-tax Act, like section 198 etc. as mentioned by us above would have no applicability as the existing laws of the Sikkim Income-tax Manual would prevail, in view of the above decision of the Hon ble High Court. Therefore, in spite of the merger, the CIT (A) went wrong in not accepting the stand taken by the assessee as mentioned by us earlier. At the same time, the contention of the assessee that the amount of tax deducted at Sikkim should be allowed as deduction being an expenditure, cannot be accepted. Therefore, we direct that the net amount of the lottery money only should be included in the taxable income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The ITO would give effect to this order and allow admissible relief to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes
1988 (8) TMI 119 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
WADI HOLDINGS LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.
........... accrues or arises to the assessee outside India during the year in question and not income deemed to accrue or arise outside India as is provided for by cls.(a) and (b) of s. 5(1). Therefore, having regard to the provisions of s. 5(1) (c) and s. 198 as tax deducted at source by a foreign company on foreign dividends cannot be regarded as income received by the assessee, it is not assessable under the IT Act, 1961 CIT vs. Blundell Spence and Co. Ltd. (1952) 21 ITR 28 (bom) applied. It is pertinent to note that in the case of CIT vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. the Hon ble Calcutta High Court had applied the aforesaid ratio and held that only the net dividend income was taxable in the hands of the assessee. 18. Respectfully following the said decisions of the Hon ble High Courts we hold that only the net dividend income received by the assessee should be brought to tax. The ITO is therefore, directed to modify the assessment accordingly. 19. In the result both the appeals are allowed.
1985 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS High Court
Madura Coats Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Assessment Year, Capital Employed, Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Profits And Gains, Setting Up ......
........... be deemed to be income received. Thus, as per section 198, the tax deducted at the source will be the income received by the erstwhile companies which owned the shares in respect of which the dividend has been declared. Section 199 clearly treats the tax deducted at source as the tax paid by the person from whose income the deduction was made. That section contemplates the credit for the tax deducted at source being given only to that person from whose income the deduction has been made. In respect of tax paid by one person, another person cannot get credit under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In this view of the matter, on the finding rendered by the Tribunal that since the dividend income is not to be assessed in the assessee s hands, the tax deducted at source cannot also be given credit to the assessee and no referable question arises. We are, therefore, not inclined to direct a reference in this case. This petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.