Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Interest charged u/s 201(1A) - non tds on port services - Tribunal cancelled interest levy - Held that:- Though assessee had not deducted tax from the amount payable to the contractor, the contractor had already paid the tax. It was held that if the person on whose behalf tax was to be deducted at source had paid such tax and that too at the time when it had become due, it would not be proper on the part of the Revenue to levy interest under section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onsideration, which reads as under: Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in cancelling the interest charged u/s 201(1A)? 2. Facts may be noted from Tax Appeal No.479 of 2016. 3. The appeal concerns assessment year 2007-08. The respondent assessee is engaged in the business of shipping support services and had, during the relevant period, taken port services from the Kandla Port Trust ('KPT' for short). Out of the payments made by the KPT to 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

aying interest in terms of subsection (1A) of section 201. The Tribunal for such purpose, relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Rishikesh Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Ltd reported in 253 ITR 310. The Tribunal recorded that KPT had paid advance tax of ₹ 43.48 crores for the assessment year 2007-08 and had claimed refund of ₹ 9.44 lacs and the return filed on 31.10.2007. Likewise, in the assessment year 2008-09, the KPT had paid advance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ose behalf tax was to be deducted at source had paid such tax and that too at the time when it had become due, it would not be proper on the part of the Revenue to levy interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. The Court held and observed as under: 11. If one looks at the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that Ravi Builder, on whose behalf the tax was to be deducted and paid under Section 194C of the Act had paid more amount of tax by way of advance tax than what was payable and 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

en that the facts of the case which has been relied upon by Mr. Qureshi cannot help the Revenue for the reason that in the said case it was not known whether the person on whose behalf the tax was to be paid to the Revenue had in fact paid the tax payable by him. In the instant case, the contractor, viz., Ravi Builder, had admittedly paid the amount of tax payable by it and thus no loss of whatsoever nature had been caused to the Revenue on account of nondeduction of tax at source by the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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