Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 210 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s s.40(a)(ia) - TDS made is not at the correct rate as per Chapter XVII B - CIT(A) deleting the disallowance - Held that:- As relying on M/s. S.K.Tekriwal [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein held that Section 40(a)(ia) refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account there is nothing in the said section to treat the assessee as defaulter where there is a shortfall in deduction. And if there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 but no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is allowed - Decided in favour of assessee. Levy of interest u/s 234B - Held that:- Neither the AO, nor the Ld. CIT(A) have narrated the facts of the case under which the assessee has been found liable by the AO to pay interest u/s 234B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has given relief by deleting the interest charged u/s 234B on the basis that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, by the decision of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 886 - Uttarkhand High Court). Nothing has been argued on behalf of the revenue that the decision followed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not cover the issue on hand. The revenue submits that it has preferred SLP against the said decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd. (supra). The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Maersk Co. Ltd. is that, when a duty was cast on the payer to deduct tax at source, on failure of the payers to do so, no interest u/s 234B could be imposed on the assessee. In absence of any stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, the Ld. CIT (A) was bound to follow the same - Decided in favour of assessee.
|