Search Results For: 192


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

Ian Peter Morris vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 21, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 192/ 234B: Where receipt is by way of salary, TDS deductions u/s 192 has to be made. No question of payment of advance tax can arise in cases of receipt by way of 'salary'. Consequently, S. 234B & 234C which levy interest for deferment of advance tax have no application

A perusal of the relevant provisions of Chapter VII of the Act [Part A, B, C and F of Chapter VII] would go to show that against salary a deduction, at the requisite rate at which income tax is to be paid by the person entitled to receive the salary, is required to be made by the employer failing which the employer is liable to pay simple interest thereon. The provisions relating to payment of advance tax is contained in Part ‘C’ and interest thereon in Part ‘F’ of Chapter VII of the Act. In cases where receipt is by way of salary, deductions under Section 192 of the Act is required to be made. No question of payment of advance tax under Part ‘C’ of Chapter VII of the Act can arise in cases of receipt by way of ‘salary’. If that is so, Part ‘F’ of Chapter VII dealing with interest chargeable in certain cases (Section 234B – Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax and Section 234C – Interest for deferment of advance tax) would have no application to the present situation

ITC Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 26, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 27, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 15, 17, 192: Concept of "salary" explained. Held that as "tips" are paid to employees of the assessee from an outsider on a voluntary basis and the employees have no vested right to receive the same, the same is not "salary" and the assessee has no obligation to deduct TDS

It can be seen, on an analysis of Section 15, that for the said Section to apply, there should be a vested right in an employee to claim any salary from an employer or former employer, whether due or not if paid; or paid or allowed, though not due. In CIT v. L.W. Russel reported in 53 ITR 91 (SC), this Court dealt with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1922 Act, which preceded Sections 15 and 17 of the present Act and held that it is necessary for the employee to have a vested right to receive an amount from his employer before he could be brought to tax under the head “salaries”; Tips being purely voluntary amounts that may or may not be paid by customers for services rendered to them would not, therefore, fall within Section 15(b) at all. Also, it is clear that salary must be paid or allowed to an employee in the previous year “by or on behalf of” an employer. Even assuming that the expression “allowed” is an expression of width, the salary must be paid by or on behalf of an employer. It must first be noticed that the expression “employer” is different from the expression “person”. An “employer” is a person who employs another person under a contract of employment, express or implied, to perform work for the employer. Therefore, Section 15(b) necessarily has reference to the contract of employment between employer and employee, and salary paid or allowed must therefore have reference to such contract of employment.

DCIT vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia)/ 192: Employees deputed pursuant to a secondment agreement are not "employees" of the assessee and so the amounts paid by way of reimbursement of their salary is not subject to TDS in the assessee's hands

The employees are not the employees of assessee Mahanagar Gas Ltd but employees of British Gas and they are working with assessee only in view of secondment agreement. As per joint venture agreement GAIL and British Gas have agreed to second, therefore, employees to the joint venture company i.e. Mahanagar Gas Ltd. on secondment basis and under secondment agreement certain employees have been seconded to the assessee. Since the employers were seconded for limited time of 2 to 3 years, the remuneration payable to these seconded employees were being paid by British Gas or GAIL recoverable from assessee on cost to cost basis. The nature of secondment agreement make clear the duties of second employees, their liabilities towards assessee and reimbursement of actual cost of remuneration, benefits and disbursement by assessee to the joint venture partners. These are reimbursements. Also the employee’s remuneration was allowable to tax in India then there would be tax deduction obligation on the employer who was responsible for making payment to the employees

DCIT vs. Artemis Medicare Service Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 15, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 192 vs/ 194-J: Tests to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship explained

Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or contract for service and whether the employees concerned are employees of the contractors has never been an easy task. No decision of this Court has laid down any hard-and-fast rule nor is it possible to do so. The question in each case has to be answered having regard to the fact involved therein. No single test – be it control test, be it organisation or any other test – has been held to be the determinative factor for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee

Top