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 › Sumit Devendra Rajani vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

Sumit Devendra Rajani vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (sumit_rajani_TDS_16A_26AS.pdf)


Upon issue of Form 16A TDS certificate, TDS credit has to be given to the payee even if there is Form 26AS mismatch or deductor is at fault for non-deposit of TDS with Govt.

The assessee filed a Writ Petition claiming that though the deductor-employer, Amar Remedies Ltd, had deducted TDS from salary and issued Form 16A, the department had not given him credit of the said TDS solely on the ground that the credit did not appear on the ITD system (Form 26AS) of the department and / or same does not match with the ITD system of the department. HELD by the High Court allowing the Petition:

U/s 204, the liability to deduct TDS is on the employer / payer. U/s 205, when tax is deductible at source, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income. This means that the assessee / deductee is entitled to credit of such amount of TDS. Even if the deductor, after deducting the TDS, does not deposit the sum with the department, the department has to recover the said amount from the deductor and cannot deny credit to the deductee (Om Prakas Gattani 242 ITR 638 (Gau) & Yashpal Sahni 293 ITR 539 (Bom) followed)

See also Rakesh Kumar Gupta (All HC), LSG Sky Chef (ITAT Mum) & Citicorp Finance (ITAT Mum)

Related Posts:

  • Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) 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…
  • Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) Since the notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein cannot be cured under section 292B of the Act. A notice under section 148(1) of the Act would be a valid notice if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records the reasons for reopening the…
  • Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) In the present case the Assessing Officer has heard the material on record which would prima facie suggest that the assessee had sold number of shares of a company which was found to be indulging in providing bogus claim of long term and short term capital gain. The company was…
  • ITO vs. Devendra J Kothari (ITAT Ahmedabad) The observations of Hon’ble High Court, disapproving the conclusions, are based on the proposition that the conclusion of the Tribunal was a way to bypass the minimum limit. That is, with respect, a wholly a highly subjective observation and all a matter of perception. The other way of looking at…
  • The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 1) We are of the view that the respondent No.1 – Union of India, Ministry of Finance should immediately look into the issue, more particularly, the representation dated 12th October 2020 at Annexure : I of the paper book (page 108) and take an appropriate decision at the earliest in accordance…
  • The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 2) It is the case of the CBDT that it has declined to exercise its power under Section 119 of the Act as the conditions for exercise of such power do not exist. It is the case of the Revenue that the issue of hardship was dealt with considerably at the…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Panchratan Hotels (HP High Court) 

    S. 170 provides that where there is a “succession of business”, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of the income upto the date of succession and the successor has to be assessed thereafter. 100% of the assessee’s shares were sold by the existing shareholders to another person….
  2. Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The argument of the Revenue that s. 80IA(9) mandates that the deduction u/s 80HHC has to be computed by reducing the amount of profits and gains allowed as deduction u/s 80IA(1) is not acceptable. S. 80IA(9) uses the words ‘shall not be allowed’ and not the words ‘shall not…
  3. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 

    The assessee has “accepted and admitted” that it has not given details with regard to proportionate expenses relatable to tax free income and argued that it was not required to disclose the same as s. 14A was not in the statute book when the ROI was filed. However, the…
  4. CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court) 

    The AO had issued a certificate u/s 195(2) authorizing the remittance without deduction of tax at source. As this certificate was not cancelled u/s 195(4), the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source and could not be treated as assessee in default. The issue whether the payments…
  5. CIT vs. M/s Khemchand Motilal Jain (Madhya Pradesh High Court) 

    While kidnapping is an offense, paying ransom is not; Bar in Explanation 1 to s. 37(1) not attracted The assessee, engaged in manufacture and sale of bidis, sent its whole-time director to a forest area for purchase of tendu leaves. … CIT vs. M/s Khemchand Motilal Jain (Madhya…

Leave a Reply

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

*