Search Results For: TDS default


PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 7, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): The second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) is beneficial to the assessee and is declaratory and curative in nature. Accordingly, it must be given retrospective effect

Various Courts, however, have seen this proviso as beneficial to the assessee and curative in nature. The leading judgment on this point was of the Division Bench of Delhi Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). The Court held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not a penalty and insertion of second proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and would have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted

Ramprakash Biswanath Shroff vs. CIT (TDS) (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 5, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
TDS on salaries: Default by employers in not issuing Form 16 TDS certificates to employees prima facie makes employers liable to prosecution u/s 405 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Dept should provide information of such defaulters so that those seeking employment etc would know in advance as to how the employers are complying with law

During the course of arguments, we have invited Mr.Suresh Kumar’s attention to Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and we find that prima facie, the reading of this Section together with its explanation furnishes enough ground to bring the persons like respondent Nos.2 to 5 to book by applying provisions of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code to them. We do not see any record till date of the Department of Revenue having applied such a provision in the prosecution launched against such defaulters

Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 192/ 205: If the deductor has deducted TDS and issued Form 16A, the deductee has to be given credit even if the deductor has defaulted in his obligation to deposit the TDS with the Government revenue

In case of the petitioner the employer for the assessment year 201213 while paying salary had deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs.2,68,498/ but had not deposited such tax with the Government revenue. The short question is under such circumstances can the Department seek to recover such amount from the petitioner or whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Incometax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner

ITO vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 8, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Though s. 206C does not impose any limitation period for the AO to hold the assessee to be in default for collection of tax at source, a reasonable time limit of four years has to be read into the statute. Orders passed after this period are beyond the limitation and are void. The fact that the Dept became aware of the default later is irrelevant. The fact that the assessee admitted his liability is also irrelevant

There is no dispute that Section 206C or any other provisions of the Income Tax Act do not provide any limitation for passing the order by the Assessing Officer U/s 206C(6)/206C(7) of the Act holding the assessee in default due to failure to collect tax at source. However, non-providing the limitation in the statute would not confer the jurisdiction/powers to the Assessing Officer to pass order U/s 206C at any point of time disregarding the amount of time lapse from such default of collection of tax at source

ITO vs. VCI Hospitality Ltd (CMM)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276B, 279(1), 278E Prosecution for non-deposit of TDS: In the case of default, Mens rea has to be presumed to exist. It is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond reasonable doubt. The plea that default in payment of TDS occurred due to delay by department in refunding excess TDS due to the assessee is not acceptable because amount deducted by way of TDS has to be deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any counter claim of the assessee

The plea of accused that since the complainant department has delayed the refund of TDS, therefore, the default occurred is not maintainable as the amount deducted by way of TDS is to be deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any counter claim of the assessee. CW-1 has stated that the refund takes about six months for processing and accused cannot take benefit of delay in release of the refund amount. Another plea of recession in the hospitality section is also not maintainable as discussed above

Top