TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 2(e) of PF Act, 1925 and deducted the sum while computing deduction of TDS on salary of the employees that resulted in short deduction of TDS and there was malafide intention. Because of considering the contribution to PF maintained by the assessee, there was wrong estimation of the salary of its employees. That was resulted in short deduction of TDS and in our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee is bonafide. As such, holding the assessee in default u/s. 201(1) of the Act is unwarranted, thereby including provisions of section 201(1) 201(1A) of the Act is also unwarranted. See MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND (VICE-VERSA) [ 2019 (5) TMI 1373 - ITAT COCHIN] Thus short deduction of TDS is bonafide and invoking provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but from the person concerned. Section 201 - Appellant shall not be treated as assessee in default Since there is no finding that the persons concerned have not paid the tax, appellant should not be treated as assessee in default. 201/24(b) - Interest paid by staff towards housing loan is eligible for deduction ITO(TDS), Alapuzha ought to have verified the veracity and genuineness in the admissibility of deduction in respect of interest paid by employees on the Housing loan. ITA No. 629/Coch/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19:- 2. Facts of the case are that a Survey u/s. 133A(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted in case of assessee on 12.02.2019 to verify compliance of TDS provisions. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that TDS @ 5% was not deducted on sales commission paid of Rs. 1,04,675/-. Thus. TDS of Rs. 5234 u/s. 194H was held to have escaped deduction. In view of above facts, the Assessee was treated as Assessee in default for a sum of Rs. 55,735/- (50,501+ 5,234) u/s. 201(1) of the Act. 2.3. As the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on salary payments, on date of payment, he was liable to pay interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act @ 1% for every month. In the present case, the Deductor/Assessee had failed to deduct TDS till date of order passed u/s. 201(1) of Act. Thus, interest u/s. 201(1A) was worked out at Rs. 16,720/- on TDS demand of Rs. 55,735/-. Same is the position in assessment year 2019-20. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corporation such as the assesses. The assesses in that case took similar plea of bonafide belief as raised in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (102 taxmann.com 245)(Bangalore Trib.) in the present proceedings. The Tribunal considered the submissions and firstly found that the law on the issue of bonafide belief in the matter of estimating of income under the head salaries for the purpose of Sec. 192 of the Act, was explained in a decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of ACIT Vs. Infosys BPO Ltd. 150 ITD 132/53 CCH 602 (Bang) in the following manner: 26. It is no doubt true that TDS is to be made at the time of payment of salary and not on the basis of salary accrued. Sec. 192(3) of the Act permits the emplo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) of the Act and proviso (iv) to Sec. 17(2) of the Act, in our view cannot be sustained. In any event, the interpretation of the word actually paid is not relevant while ascertaining the Quantum of tax that has to be deducted at source u/s. 192 of the Act. As far as the Assessee is concerned, his obligation is only to make an estimate of the income under the head salaries and such estimate has to be a bonafide estimate. 27. The primary liability of the payee to pay tax remains. Section 191 confirms this. In a situation of honest difference of opinion, it is not the deductor that is to be proceeded against but the payees of the sums. To reiterate, the payment towards medical expenditure and leave travel is made keeping in view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
