Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1596 - HC - Income TaxTDS liability on assessee university - employer employee relationship - whether the assessee appellant University would be liable for non deduction of TDS for the financial period 2007-2008 even when the assessee appellant University itself came to be incorporated on 13.09.2013? - demand created against the assessee appellant University for the financial period 2007-2008 as barred by limitation - Held that:- The law which was applicable on the completion of financial year is applicable in the facts of the case and for assessment year 2007-08, the assessment year will expire on 31st March, 2008 which was over. Even if the view canvassed by Mr. Mathur, counsel for the respondent is taken into consideration, the financial year expired on 31st March, 2008. In that view of the matter in view of decisions in Tata Teleservices [2016 (2) TMI 414 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] which was followed in Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors., [2016 (3) TMI 285 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], we are of the opinion that question No.2 is required to be answered in favour of assessee. On question No.1, the assessee-University has come into existence in the year 2013 and it has never made the payment during the assessment year under consideration as it was not in existence. In that view of the matter, the view taken by both the authorities is not correct. In that view of the matter, finding arrived at by the original authority is required to be accepted. The issue is answered in favour of assessee. Demand of interest u/s 201(1A) - recipient of such income had discharged the applicable tax - Held that:- If the tax was duly paid and that too at the time when it had become due, it would not be proper on the part of the Revenue to levy any interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act especially when Builder had paid more amount of tax by way of advance tax than what was payable by it. As the amount of tax payable by the contractor had already been paid by it and that too in excess of the amount which was payable by way of advance tax, in our opinion, the Tribunal was absolutely right in holding that the tax paid by the contractor in its own case, by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax, should be deducted from the gross tax that the assessee should have deducted under Section 194C of the Act while computing interest chargeable under Section 201(1A) - Assessee's appeal allowed. See DCIT (International Taxation) Jaipur Vs. M/s. National Highway Authority of India
|