Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (Western Region Pipeline) Ltd And Others Versus ACIT, TDS Cir. Rajkot and Others

2015 (6) TMI 24 - ITAT RAJKOT

Non-deduction of tax under section 194C - assessee-in-default under section 201(1) - Held that:- As the appellant was required to deduct tax on the year end provisions made by it. However, as tax has been deducted subsequently before due date of filing of return and the remaining amount being disallowed and added back to the total income while filing return of income, the appellant is not held to be in default u/s.201. - The AR of the assessee could not explain what is the grievance of the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee is found to be an assessee-in-default in respect of the TDS amount, then out of many consequences, one of the consequences, is disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We, therefore, do not agree with the order of the CIT(A) in respect of not treating the assessee as assessee-in-default in respect of ₹ 4,98,43,087/-, on the ground that the said amount was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the above extent. H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/- for deciding the other grounds of appeal after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Tds on payment of pest control charges - 194C or 194J - Held that:- error in the order of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by the DR. He could not cite any contrary decision in support of the claim of the Revenue that the tax was required to be deducted at source under section 194J and not under section 194C of the Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er N. S. Saini, Accountant Member These are cross appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Rajkot dated 10.11.2014 for the Asstt.Year 2012-13. ITA No.739/RJT/2014 - Asstt.Year 2012-13 (Assessee's Appeal) 2. The first ground of appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO treating the assessee as assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act for ₹ 14,48,42,236/- for non-deduction of tax under section 194C of the Act. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovisions amounting to ₹ 14,48,42,326/- made by the assessee in respect of "contract liabilities". Therefore, he treated the assessee as assessee-in-default under section 201(1) and also liable for interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for nondeduction of tax at source. He held that the assessee to be liable for TDS under section 201(1A) of ₹ 29,08,158/- and interest under section 201(1A) of ₹ 7,27,250/- aggregating to ₹ 36,35,408/-. 4. The assessee filed app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ver, as per the tax audit report submitted by the appellant,. ₹ 4,98,43,087/- have been disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) in the computation of income. Also, ₹ 9,49,99,239/- have been treated as liability of TDS discharged subsequent to end of financial year, i.e. tax deducted and deposited in government account, before signing of tax audit report/due date of filing of return. It is thus mentioned by" the appellant that as the entire amount has been either: disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) or ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted has been disallowed and added back to the income u/s.40(a)(ia). The appellant is thus not held to be in default u/s.201 in respect of ₹ 14,48,42,236/-." 4.10 To summarise, the appellant was required to deduct tax on the year end provisions made by it. However, as tax has been deducted subsequently before due date of filing of return and the remaining amount being disallowed and added back to the total income while filing return of income, the appellant is not held to be in default .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No.RKT100185D on provisions of ₹ 10,43,91,054/- pertaining to other TDS assessee's who are having separate TAN Nos. Ltd. CIT(A)-II erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same. 3. Ld.ACIT(TDS has erred in law as well as on facts in levying interest u/s.201(1A) of the I.T.At,1961 on account of failure to deduct tax on the year end provisions of ₹ 14,48,42,236/- and ld.CIT(A)-II erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s.201(1A) of the I.T.Act." 7. At the time of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duction of tax at source u/s.194C of the Act on provisions at ₹ 4,98,43,087/-" 9. Brief facts of the case are that the AO treated the assessee as assessee-in-default for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act for an amount of ₹ 14,48,42,326/-. However, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not in default under section 201(1) for ₹ 4,98,43,087/-, as for this amount, the addition was made to the income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

discharged subsequent to end of financial year i.e. tax deducted and deposited in government account before signing of tax audit report/due date of filing of return, and the balance amount of ₹ 4,98,43,087/- was disallowed in the assessment of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A), in view of disallowance of entire expenses of ₹ 4,98,43,087/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act held that the assessee is not an assessee-in-default in respe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring the relevant previous year. 15. Simply because the amount was disallowed in the assessment made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee cannot be treated as assessee-indefault under section 201 in respect of the same amount. Rather, when the assessee is found to be an assessee-in-default in respect of the TDS amount, then out of many consequences, one of the consequences, is disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We, there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

43,087/-. The same was not adjudicated upon by the CIT(A) as he decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the above ground. In the circumstances, in our considered view, it shall be in the interest of justice to restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) in respect of the amount of ₹ 4,98,43,087/- for deciding the other grounds of appeal after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We order according. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed, 17. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version