Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 460 - ITAT DELHITDS u/s 194A - addition under section 40(a)(ia) - TDS on lease rent - Held that:- Respectfully following Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT [2017 (2) TMI 1109 - DELHI HIGH COURT], we hold that, TDS needs to be deducted on lease rent. TDS liability on Interest paid to Yamuna Expressway Development Authority (YIEDA) - Held that:- Insofar as definition of, who would constitute an “Authority”, in our considered opinion decision of CANARA BANK [2016 (5) TMI 570 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] cannot be applied wherein held that assessee is entitled to exemption of payment of tax at source under section 194A, due to ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs CIT (supra). Accordingly, respectfully following ratio laid down in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs CIT [2018 (8) TMI 1374 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] we hold that TDS needs to be deducted on interest paid to YEIDA. TDS liability on Bank guarantee commission u/s 194A - Held that:- Assessee in present case paid commission to bank not as an agent. Accordingly, we hold that there was no need to deduct TDS on the Bank Guarantee Commission paid by assessee to Bank. Difference in amount of TDS as per 26AS - Held that:- It reveals that assessee received ₹ 2,51,17,344/-, on which TDS of ₹ 25,11,900/- has been deducted. Ld. CIT(A) without verifying any details deleted addition, by holding that no income against advance accrued to assessee. Ld.CIT(A) also failed to note that advance has been received for services which are to be rendered in next year. It is the fact that assessee received money and did not offer to tax during the year under consideration, stating that, it is advance received. However, Ld.CIT(A) failed to observe that advance received, must have culminated in subsequent year as income of assessee. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is required to be verified, in which year, the same income as been offered by assessee for income tax purposes.
|