Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › DCIT vs. M/s. S. K. Tekriwal (ITAT Kolkata)

DCIT vs. M/s. S. K. Tekriwal (ITAT Kolkata)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 29, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (tekriwal_40_a_i_short_TDS_default.pdf)


No s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance for short-deduction TDS default

The assessee paid Rs. 3.37 crores as “machine hire charges” on which it deducted TDS u/s 194C at 1%. The AO held that the payment was “rent” and TDS ought to have been deducted at 10% u/s 194-I. He disallowed the expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia). This was reversed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:

S. 40(a)(ia) provides for a disallowance if amounts towards rent etc have been paid without deducting tax at source. It does not apply to a case of short-deduction of tax at source. As the assessee had deducted u/s 194C, it was not a case of “non-deduction” of TDS. If there is a shortfall due to difference of opinion as to which TDS provision would apply, the assessee may be treated as a defaulter u/s 201 but no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia). (Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy (ITAT Mumbai) followed – included in file)

For more see The Law of TDS u/s 194C: Controversies & Solutions by Shri. K. C. Singhal, VP, ITAT (Retd)

Related Posts:

  • Rashmi Metaliks Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It has to be kept in mind that the AO is empowered to collect materials behind the back of the assessee, however if he intends to use it adversely against the assessee, then it is incumbent upon him to furnish a copy of the materials/statements to the assessee and the…
  • Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The insertion of third proviso (noted above) to Section 50C of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature. That is, the third provisoto Section 50C of the Act relates to computation of value of property as explained by us above, hence it is not a substantive amendment, it is…
  • Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG,…
  • Baniara Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is essential that for application of Sec. 50C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as "land or building or both" then section 50C will cease to apply. Booking advance cannot be…
  • Neha Chowdhary vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It emerges that from a perusal of these case files that although the assessee has produced her documentary evidence before the lower authorities about the impugned sums to be in the nature of income derived from the sales of shares, the fact remains that her detailed explanation tendered in the…
  • Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The transaction in question cannot be regarded as transfer in view of provisions of section 47(iv) of the Act, as it is a transfer of capital asset by a company to its subsidiary company and as a second step down 100% subsidiary company is also as subsidiary of the assessee…

Related Judgements

  1. Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    S. 50C does not apply to all capital assets but only to “land or building”. A tenancy right is not “land or building” (It is “rights” in building). Consequently, s. 50C has no application and the capital gains have to be computed on the basis of the actual consideration…
  2. Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. UOI & B. R. Mittal vs. UOI (CAT Delhi Bench) 

    Appointment of Vice President of the ITAT is by merit-based selection and not seniority. No reservation for OBCRead more ›
  3. DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Transfer Pricing: Low T/O companies are not comparable. Only operational profits to be considered for comparison The assessee, a courier company, made payments to its parent company towards net work fees, reimbursement of expenses, purchase of marketing material etc. In … DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT…
  4. KRA Holding & Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    The PMS fee, on profit sharing basis, was for the twin purposes of acquisition and sale of the securities. The fact that bifurcation between the two is not possible is not relevant. The department’s argument that fee should be share-specific is absurd because fees for shares transactions is never…
  5. Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    For purposes of s. 80HHC, the direct cost attributable to the earning of the DEPB license (equal to the value of the license on the date of receipt) has to be reduced from the direct cost of trading goods on … Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*