9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BAGESHPURA BLRK12188B 2014-15 26Q Q2 1548 NFAC/2013- 14/10067413 17-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 596/Bang/2022 BALEHONNUR BLRK12371C 2012-13 26Q Q3 8291 NFAC/2011- 12/10069886 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 597/Bang/2022 BALEHONNUR BLRK12371C 2012-13 26Q Q4 12800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069712 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 598/Bang/2022 BALEHONNUR BLRK12371C 2014-15 26Q Q1 1400 NFAC/2013- 14/10067412 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 599/Bang/2022 BANDIHOLE BLRK12396G 2012-13 26Q Q3 5737 NFAC/2011- 12/10068101 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 600/Bang/2022 BANDIHOLE BLRK12396G 2013-14 26Q Q1 2000 NFAC/2012- 13/10069342 28-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 601/Bang/2022 BANDIHOLE BLRK12396G 2013-14 26Q Q2 1600 NFAC/2012- 13/10069182 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 602/Bang/2022 BELADHARA BLRK12200G 2012-13 26Q Q4 3800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069723 17-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 603/Bang/2022 BELUR BLRK12381F 2012-13 26Q Q4 1200 NFAC/2011- 12/10068103 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 604/Bang/2022 BELUR BLRK12381F 2014-15 26Q Q1 3710 NFAC/2013- 14/10066811 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 605/Bang/2022 BHOGADI BLRK12257A 2014-15 26Q Q3 212689 NFAC/2013- 14/10067411 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RK12210C 2012-13 26Q Q4 1495 NFAC/2011- 12/10069722 28-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 627/Bang/2022 MARTALLY BLRK12162D 2012-13 26Q Q4 12140 NFAC/2011- 12/10069724 09-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 628/Bang/2022 MARTALLY BLRK12162D 2013-14 26Q Q4 2800 NFAC/2012- 13/10069333 10-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 629/Bang/2022 MAVATHUR BLRK12151G 2012-13 26Q Q4 5800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069896 09-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 630/Bang/2022 MAVATHUR BLRK12151G 2014-15 26Q Q1 246400 NFAC/2013- 14/10065205 09-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 631/Bang/2022 MUDALAHIPPE BLRK12297F 2012-13 26Q Q4 13600 NFAC/2011- 12/10069898 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 632/Bang/2022 MYLANAHALLY BLRK12407D 2012-13 26Q Q3 5800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069883 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 633/Bang/2022 MYLANAHALLY BLRK12407D 2012-13 26Q Q4 10800 NFAC/2011- 12/10069708 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 634/Bang/2022 MYLANAHALLY BLRK12407D 2013-14 26Q Q1 3400 NFAC/2012- 13/10069165 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 635/Bang/2022 NELAMANGALA BLRK12398B 2012-13 26Q Q3 12600 NFAC/2011- 12/10069884 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 636/Bang/2022 NELAMANGALA BLRK12398B 2012-13 26Q Q4 5600 NFAC/2011- 12/10069710 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g/2022 IMMADIHALLY BLRK12406C 2013-14 26Q Q3 3460 NFAC/2012- 13/10069017 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 659/Bang/2022 IMMADIHALLY BLRK12406C 2014-15 26Q Q1 24600 NFAC/2013- 14/10066674 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 660/Bang/2022 IMMADIHALLY BLRK12406C 2014-15 26Q Q2 5520 NFAC/2013- 14/10066670 13-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 661/Bang/2022 K R NAGAR BLRK12216B 2013-14 26Q Q3 196877 NFAC/2012- 13/10069349 10-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 662/Bang/2022 K R NAGAR BLRK12216B 2014-15 26Q Q3 208200 NFAC/2013- 14/10066808 10-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 663/Bang/2022 KABBALLI (C R PATNA) BLRK12318F 2012-13 26Q Q3 3400 NFAC/2011- 12/10069716 20-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 664/Bang/2022 KATTEPURA BLRK12153B 2014-15 26Q Q4 34800 NFAC/2013- 14/10067414 20-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 665/Bang/2022 KOLLEGALA BLRK12218D 2012-13 26Q Q3 1200 NFAC/2011- 12/10069889 17-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 666/Bang/2022 KUMBALAGODU BLRK12274D 2012-13 26Q Q3 5925 NFAC/2011- 12/10069887 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 667/Bang/2022 KUMBALAGODU BLRK12274D 2012-13 26Q Q4 1400 NFAC/2011- 12/10069711 14-Jun-22 01-08-2022 ITA 668/Bang/2022 KUMBALAGODU BLRK12274D 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before the NFAC /CIT(A). The assessee's contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions of section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Section 200A of the Act is a provision which deals with how a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act has to be processed and it reads as follows:- Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) the sums deductible under this Chapter shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (i) any arithmetical error in the statement; or (ii) an incorrect claim, apparent from any information in the statement; (b) the interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the sums deductible as computed in the statement; (c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karnataka High Court held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act could be computed at the time of processing of return and issue of intimation has come into effect only from 1.6.2015 and had only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s.234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The NFAC/CIT(Appeals) agreed with the contention that the issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the Assessee in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi (supra). The NFAC/CIT(A) however found that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. UOI (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the cae of M/S.Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan & another Vs. Union of India & others (D.V.Civil Writ Petition No.8672/2014 dated 28.7.2015 has taken a view that even in the absence of Sec.200A of the Act with introduction of Sec.234E of the Act it was always open to the revenue to demand and collect fee for late filing of statement of TDS and that Sec.200A mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) is applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 1.6.2015. The present appeals of the Assessee relate to TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015 and therefore levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act would not be valid, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 8. It is no doubt true that three Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat and Rajasthan, have taken a view contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble Karantaka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra). If there is conflicting views rendered by different High Courts, the view taken by the jurisdictional High Court is binding in the jurisdictional area of the respective High Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Subramaniam - vs.- Siemens India Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom.) held that in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, authorities must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Court further added that in cases where there is a conflict betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CCI Vs. M/S.Dilip Kumar & Co. & others (supra) is concerned, , it was a case where a Constitutional Bench was set up to examine the correctness of the ratio of the 3-Judge Bench decision in the case of Sun Export Corporation v. CC (1997) 6 SCC 564 ('Sun Export Case'), namely the rule of construction to be applied while interpreting a tax exemption provision / notification when there is an ambiguity as to its applicability with reference to the entitlement of the assessee or the rate of tax to be applied. The Division Bench in Dilip Kumar & Co's case was tackling the question as to whether the assessee was eligible for claiming benefit of concessional rate of import duty in respect of a consignment of 'Vitamin E50 powder' ('animal feed supplement'), in terms of a notification. The revenue authorities contended that the notification was applicable only to 'animal feed'. The assessee, on the other hand, argued that the concessional duty rate had to be extended to 'animal feed supplement' as well, in light of the Sun Export Case, wherein it was held that 'in case of two views possible, it is well- settled, that one favourable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
