TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 356 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that the said amendment would have retrospective applicability from the date of its insertion with effect from the assessment year 2005-2006 in order to remove the unintended consequences which were causing grave and genuine hardships to the assessees and remedy that position In Commissioner of Income Tax -vs- Cargo Linkers [ 2008 (3) TMI 619 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where in recognition of the fact that similarly placed clearing and forwarding agents in the industry had not been deducting tax at source till 31.03.2005, it was held that since the contract is actually between the exporter and the airline, and the clearing and forwarding agent is only an intermediary, it is not the person responsible for the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proposes to re-assess income for that assessment year and the Petitioner was required to deliver within 30 days from the date of receipt of that notice, a return in the prescribed format for his income for that assessment year. 3. It must, at once, be recapitulated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jeans Knit Private Limited -vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2018) 12 SCC 36] has held that challenge to such notice under Section 148 of the IT Act in a Writ Petition is maintainable and would have to be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters as laid down in various decisions. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in GKN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosing the freight receipts, the assessee has avoided filing of Form No.3 CD required to be filed u/s 44 AB. The freight payment by the assessee to La Freightlift Pvt. Ltd. is covered u/s 194C as payment to a sub-contractor. The assessee is however deducting tax on this payment from the A.Y. 2006-07 only. During the year 2004-05, relevant for the asst. year 2005-06, the assessee had paid a total sum of ₹ 3,21,79,805/- as freight charges. However the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source from these payments. The entire sum of ₹ 3,21,79,805/- will have to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). As the assessee has filed to disclose both the freight receipts and the freight payments in the Income and Expenditure Statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax-1 -vs- Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., (Order dated 26.08.2015 in I.T.A. Nos. 160 and 161 of 2015). That apart, reliance is placed on another ruling of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax -vs- Cargo Linkers (Order dated 25.03.2008 in ITA No. 218 of 2008), where in recognition of the fact that similarly placed clearing and forwarding agents in the industry had not been deducting tax at source till 31.03.2005, it was held that since the contract is actually between the exporter and the airline, and the clearing and forwarding agent is only an intermediary, it is not the person responsible for the deduction of tax at source in terms of Section 194-C of the IT Act. It is submitted that in view of the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
