9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Respondent : MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT (174) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These petitions are filed by the same petitioner for similar reliefs. We may therefore record facts from Special Civil Application No.12965 of 2018. 2. The petitioner is an individual. At the relevant time he was employed as a pilot of King Fisher Airlines. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Incometax, reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 31 and the CBDT circulars holding the field. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents on record. Basic facts are not in dispute. In case of the petitioner the employer for the assessment year 2012-13 while paying salary had deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs. 2,68,498/but had not deposited such tax with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and Gauhati High Court. Applying the aforesaid two decisions of the Bombay High Court as well as Gauhati High Court, the facts of the case on hand and even considering Section 205 of the Act action of the respondent in not giving the credit of the tax deducted at source for which form no.16 A have been produced by the assessee - deductee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand notice dated 6.1.2012 (Annexure D) is quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified and observed that if the department is of the opinion deductor has not deposited the said amount of tax deducted at source, it will always been open for the department to recover the same from the deductor. Rule is made absolutely to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
