Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 743 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 195 - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - treating the Notification No 56/2012 dated 31-12-2012 effective from 01-01-2013 for the deduction of tax payment to Indian Bank under the Income tax Act, 1961 as merely of a clarification in nature - Held that:- In case of CIT vs. JDS Apparels (P) Ltd. reported in (2014 (11) TMI 732 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and has held that since the bank was making the payment to the assessee after making deduction of bank charges, there was no occasion for the assessee to deduct tax at source and, further, the bank was not acting on behalf of the assessee but on the other hand was acting on behalf of the customers while processing payments through debit cards and credit cards. In the present case we further feel the said principle should be applied as HDFC would necessarily have acted as per law and it is not the case of the Revenue that the bank had not paid taxes on their income. It is not a case of loss of Revenue as such or a case where the recipient did not pay their taxes - decided against revenue. Addition made to the book profits u/s 115JB - Provision for gratuity as an ascertained liability as it based on actuarial valuation - Held that:- We find from the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) that he has given a categorical finding that the provision for gratuity was an ascertained liability and was based on actuarial valuation and, therefore, the addition made to the book profits u/s 115JB on this account was liable to be deleted. DR also could not point out that the observations of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in this regard were factually incorrect. We also note that this issue is also covered by another order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. NHPC Ltd. vide [2014 (9) TMI 1011 - ITAT DELHI]. CIT (Appeals), while allowing the assessee’s appeal, has also referred to the observations of the ITAT in this case. Accordingly, we find ourselves unable to take a view which is different from that of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue and we dismiss ground no. 2 of the department’s appeal.
|