9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "1 . In the facts and in ci rcumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the TDS Officer to charge interest u/s 201(1A) of the act till the date of filing of return of income and not till the date of payment of tax by the deductees, disregarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in: "Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Lt d. v. CIT (2007) 163 Taxman 355 & CIT v. Pranoy Roy (2009) 309 ITR 231 (SC)" 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) er r ed in upholding the l evy of f ees u/s 234E of Rs. 21,200/ - in respect of period prior to 01.06.2005, without any enabling provision in section 200A." 2. Briefly stated, on account of short deduction of tax at source f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d statutory provision is to be reckoned from the date on which such tax was deducted, till the date on which such tax is actually paid. Apart there from, we find that the aforesaid issue is no more res-integra in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 163 Taxman 355 (SC). In the aforementioned case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that liability to charge interest under Sec.201(1A) of the Act continues till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the levy of interest under Sec.201(1A) by the A.O in the case before us is to be reckoned till the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source were filed by the assessee on 22.09.2015 and the same had thereafter been processed under Sec.200A of the I.T Act on 26.09.2015 and 04.10.2015, as per the details tabulated hereinabove, We find that the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. Vs. Union of India (2016) 289 CTR 602 (Kar.) had concluded that the notice under Sec.200A of the I.T. Act computing fee under Sec.234E, to the extent the same related to the period of the tax deducted prior to 01.06.2015 was liable to be set aside. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka had thereafter been relied upon by the ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Sonalac Paints & Coatings Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 167 DTR 83 (Chd.). In the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered view that the ACIT-TDS, CPC Ghaziabad in the case before us had erred in levying fees under Sec.234E in respect of tax deducted at source for the four quarters prior to 01.06.2015 in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. We thus not being persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A) who had upheld the levy of fees by the A.O, thus set aside his order and vacate the demand raised by the A.O under Sec.234E in the hands of the assessee for all the four quarters for the year under consideration." In the aforementioned case, the Tribunal after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhavi Vs. Union of India (2016) 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka), had concluded, that levy of fees under Sec.234 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
