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 →

ACIT (TDS) , Chandigarh Versus Canara Bank

2015 (4) TMI 1138 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

TDS u/s 194H - commission for daily collection purpose in respect of pigmy deposits without deduction of tax at source - ndividuals whom commission was paid for daily collection the same was treated as salary incomeHeld that:- Tax was required to be deducted by treating the payment as ‘salary’ in respect of three individual NNND Agents, hired by banks for daily collection purposes in respect of Pigmy deposits, in view of the letter dated 12.12.2007, issued by Under Secretary (ITB) from F.No. 275 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The scheme of the provisions for deduction of tax at source applied not only to the amount paid, which bears the character of “income”, such as salaries, dividends, interest on securities, etc., but also to gross sums, the whole of which may not be income or profits in the hands of the recipient, such as payment to contractors or sub-contractors. The purpose of the provisions for deduction of tax at source in Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to see that from the sum which is charge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

so far and infact in reply to query raised by the branch, it was clearly admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that University has not been able to provide to the counsel any information on this. Therefore only presumption is that this trust has not been recognized so far. The income of trust which is not approved by the Commissioner is not exempted and therefore tax was required to be deducted by the bank. - ITA No. 1128/Chd/2014 & ITA No.14/Chd/2015 - Dated:- 15-4-2015 - SHRI BHAVNESH S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e (TDS) u/s 194A. 2. That during the relevant period of time, the assessee bank had no documentary evidence in the form of Lower Deduction Certificate u/s 197 etc. on the basis of which the bank came ot the conclusion that there was no requirement of deduction of tax, as required u/s 194A of the I.T. Act. 1961. 3. After hearing both the parties we find that a survey / TDS inspection was conducted in the premises of assessee and it was noted that interest has been paid to the following parties: ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not be produced after giving various opportunities. It was mainly stated that same is not traceable therefore AO held that assessee was liable to be treated as assessee in default and liability for tax was deducted under section 201 and interest under section 201(1)(A). 4. Further it was noticed that assessee has deducted lower tax from three individuals namely Mr. A. Saha, Mr. A.R. Bhasin, Mr. D.S. Thakur who were paid commission for daily collection purpose in respect of pigmy deposits. In res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

igarh and therefore interest income was exempted. (iii) In case of PEC University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust) the assessee has also applied for exemption under section 10(23AAA). (iv) In case of Punjab Infrastructure Development Board assessee has been notified under section 10(23C)(iv) so the total income was exempted. In case of three individuals whom commission was paid for daily collection the same was treated as salary income and tax deducted accordingly, in view of the clarification .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee was allowed partly. 7. Before us the Ld. DR strongly supported the order of AO. 8. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and find that Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue vide para 5 and para 5.1 which is as under. 5. I have considered facts of the case. As per the documents filed by the appellant, tax was not required to be deducted at source on interest paid to the following: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respect of Pigmy deposits, in view of the letter dated 12.12.2007, issued by Under Secretary (ITB) from F.No. 275/75/2007-ITB. The Assessing Officer has wrongly treated the payment made to these individuals as commission u/s 194 H of the Act. In our opinion the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue because if an organization is exempted then same is not liable to tax and therefore there is no need for deduction of tax. Therefore we find nothing wrong in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and confirm t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sly violated by the AO. No reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of AO treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of interest paid to PEC University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust) without appreciating the provisions of section 201(1) read with section 191. The Ld. CIT(A0 has erred by ignoring the judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

This ground is of general nature and then not required separate adjudication. Ground No. 2- Though Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that proper opportunity has not been given but he could not point out in what respect the proper opportunity has not been given and therefore we decline to entertain this ground and dismissed the same. Ground No. 3& 4- The facts has been discussed in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In respect of this issue which we have adjudicated in above noted paras and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust) is confirmed and the appellant gets relief of rest of the demand of ₹ 62,46,541/-(75,02,564 - 12,56,023). 12. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the University has not provided him any information to the fact whether Pension fund was granted approval or not. However still he submitted that tax was not deductible because there were no primary liability on the part of PEC University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust). In view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

any to the expatriate has a connection with services rendered in India. It was held that such payment of home salary had definite connection with the services rendered in India and therefore assessee was responsible to deduct tax. It was further observed as under: The scheme of the provisions for deduction of tax at source applied not only to the amount paid, which bears the character of income , such as salaries, dividends, interest on securities, etc., but also to gross sums, the whole of whic .....

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