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:

  • 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…
  • 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…
  • Radhaswami Salt Works vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) Section 147 of the Act as is well known, empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, subject to certain conditions. 3rd proviso to section 147 however provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income other than the income involving the matters which are the subject matters…
  • 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…
  • Mehsana District Central Co-op Bank Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) Nevertheless, if we see entire sequence, it becomes clear that the Assessing Officer was clearly acting under the dictates of the audit party. Even after issuing the notice, he still maintained an opinion that no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. If that be so, he ought to have…
  • Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It is a matter of deep regret that the Chief Commissioner of State Tax has attempted to justify such wrongful action on the part of the officers of the department by placing reliance upon the provisions relating to power of investigation under an earlier enactment to justify the actions of…

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 *

*