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 →

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus Shridhar Shantinath Patravali,

2017 (2) TMI 579 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

TDS u/s 194C - whether the assessee is not required to deduct the tax if the sub-contractors produces the necessary declaration in the prescribed Form and the sub-contractor does not own more than two goods carriages during the previous year? - Held that:- Admittedly, the sub-contractors in the present case did not own more than two goods carriages during the previous year. Thus, the assessee was not required to deduct the tax at source. Merely because the Form No.15J was not filed before the co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J., Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji , whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT , for short) and has upheld the disallowance claimed by the assessee, the Revenue has approached this Court. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law before this Court: i. Whether on facts and in law the Tribunal is right in ignoring th .....

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 decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chhogmal Chiranji Lal vs. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 51 (Raj), relied upon by the CIT (Appeals), wherein, it has been held that if law provides for doing a thing in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone? 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Mr. Shridhar S. Patravali, the Proprietor of Arihant Transport, is engaged in the business of hiring/plying of trucks for transporting the goods. For the as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

antinath B. Patravali, and had also paid ₹ 17,80,639/- to Smt. Savita S. Patravali, the assessee was required to submit Form No.15J before the appropriate Authority. However, as the assessee ha d failed to submit the said Forms before the appropriate Authority, it was felt that the payment made to these two persons was in violation of Section 194C(3) of the Act. 4. After the issuance of notice, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 26 3 of the Act by determini .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a) of the Act. 5. Since the assessee was aggrieved by the assessing order, dated 21.01.2013, he had filed an Appeal before the CAT. By order dated 09.10.2013, the learned CAT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Therefore, the assessee further filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal. By the impugned order, dated 19.11.2014, the learned Tribunal has permitted the disallowance as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the Reve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned Authority, the learned Tribunal was unjustified in upholding the disallowances. Therefore, the two substantial questions of law, mentioned above, clearly arise for consideration in the present appeal. 8. However, on the other hand, Mr. Ashok A. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the assessee, submits that according to Section 292B of the Act, no return of income, assessment would be invalid merely because of any mistake in such return of income or assessment as long as i n substance and in ef .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essment was made by order dated 24.12.2010, the Assessing Officer had n oted this fact and had even mentioned that the copies of Form No.15J have been submitted by the assessee and are being kept in the record. Therefore, merely because an inadvertent mistake had cropped up, the Revenue is not justified in claiming that the essential requirements of Section 194C(3) of the Act have not been fulfilled by the assessee. Relying on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurvinder Transport (Tax Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

needs to be answered by this Court. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 11. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the assessee had paid the truck hire charges both to Mr. Shantinath Patravali and Smt. Savita Patravali. As mentioned above, from both these sub-contractors he had received Form No.15-I. The assessee was required to submit the Form No.15J before the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) at Bangalore. However, as the Office 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

 

 

 

 

 

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