Search Results For: 201


Tata Teleservices vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 201(3): The amendment to s. 201(3) by FA 2014 to extend the time limit for passing s. 201 orders is prospective and does not apply to cases which are already time-barred. A show-cause notice involving a pure point of law can be challenged in a Writ Petition

An accrued right to plead a time barred which is acquired after the lapse of the statutory period is in every sense a right even though it arises under an Act which is procedural. It is a right which is not to be taken away by conferring on the statute a retrospective operation unless such a construction is unavoidable. while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable w.e.f. 1/10/2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 had become time barred and/or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation under section 201(3)(i) of the Act had already expired on 31/3/2011 and 31/3/2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and therefore, as such a right has been accrued in favour of the assessee

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Arun Ganesh Jogdeo vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Dept directed to follow directions of Delhi High Court in 352 ITR 273 and to be vigilant and ensure that such mistakes do not occur. Dept directed to set up a self-auditing vigilance cell to redress taxpayers' grievances

The Income Tax authorities shall follow the directions given by the Delhi High Court in case of Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax 352 ITR 273 in other cities, including the city of Mumbai, in Maharashtra State. We hope and trust that the Income Tax Department will be more vigilant and ensure that such mistakes will not occur in future. We also direct the Income Tax Department to form a Vigilance Cell to ensure that there is a monitoring authority, which would monitor various policy decisions which are taken and a self auditing mechanism is required to be formulated to ensure that the income tax assessees are not made to run from pillar to post for the purpose of redressal of their grievances

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Reliance Industries Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1985-86, 1987-88
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221: Penalty for failure to pay TDS in time can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily pays the TDS. Financial hardship, diverse locations and lack of computerization are not good excuses. The fact that CIT(A) decided in favour of the assessee & deleted the penalty does not necessarily mean that two views are possible

Parliament treats a person who has deducted the tax and fails to pay it to revenue as a class different from a person who has not deducted the tax and also not deposited the tax with revenue. This is for the reason that in the first class of cases the assessee concerned after deducting the tax, keep the money so deducted which belongs to another person for its own use. In the second class of cases, the assessee concerned does not take any advantage as he pays the entire amount to the payee without deducting any tax and does not enrich itself at the cost of the government. Therefore, although penalty is also imposable in the second class of cases, yet in view of the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, it is open to such assessee to satisfy the Assessing Officer that as they have good and sufficient reasons no penalty is imposable. It is in the above view that in the first class of assessees the Parliament has provided for prosecution under Section 276B of the Act for failing the pay the tax deducted at source

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01 to 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 234B: View in Alcatel Lucent that assessee must pay interest for short-fall of advance-tax if it induced payee not to deduct TDS cannot be followed. View in Jacobs has to be followed because obligation of payer to deduct TDS is absolute & not dependent on assertion of payee. Impact of Proviso to s. 209(1) inserted by FA 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2012 considered

This Court respectfully cannot apply the view taken in Alcatel Lucent to this case. This is because if the payer deducts tax at source only when the assessee admits tax liability, then deductions would not be made in cases where the assessee either falsely or under a bona fide mistake denies tax liability. Tax obligations cannot be founded on assertions of interested parties. In such cases, the payer’s obligation to deduct tax would depend on the payee’s opinion of whether it is liable to tax, which may differ from its actual liability to tax as determined by the AO’s final order. This effectively authorizes the assessee and the payer to contract out of the statutory obligation to deduct tax at source, which in this case, is located in Section 195(1). Surely this could not be the Parliamentary intent

Posted in All Judgements, High Court