Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dist. Intermediate Educational Office v. ITO (TDS) [2023] 201 ITD 74 (Hyd)(Trib.)

S. 194J : Deduction of tax at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Payments to contract teachers-Remuneration did not exceed Rs .5 lakhs-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S.87A]

Government Polytechnic Education Society v. ITO (TDS) (2023) 200 ITD 134 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Educational institute-Monthly remuneration to guest faculties-Contract for service-Below taxable limit on individual basis-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

Neelkanth Developers v .ADIT (2023)101 ITR 44 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 194IA : Deduction at source-Immoveable property-Real estate-Percentage Completion method-Tax deducted by buyer at the time of execution of deed-Assessee to produce certificates to substantiate tax deducted on income offered in earlier or current year-AO is directed to carry out necessary verification-Matter remanded.[S. 145, 198,199]

Anant Singhania HUF v. ITO (2023) 202 ITD 46/ 226 TTJ 430 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 194I : Deduction at source-Rent-TDS credit cannot be denied to assessee HUF as a consequence of wrong PAN mentioned in the sale deed mistakenly, when corresponding capital gain on relevant transaction was taxed in the assessee HUF’s name .[S.199 Rule 37BA(2)]

Aero Club v. DCIT [2023] 200 ITD 318 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Common area maintenance charges-,Paid to malls-Tax deductable 2 percent under section 194C and not 10 %.[S. 194I]

Wayanad District Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (2023) 200 ITD 500 (Cochin)(Trib)

S. 194A : Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Assessee in default-The tax deducted was deposited-The assessee could not be treated as assessee in default under section 201(1)-The assessee would be liable to pay interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. [S. 201(1) 201(IA)]

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 5 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 192: Deduction at source-Salary-Difference between sums reported in 26AS and sums reported by assessee-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [Form 26AS]

Satish Kumar v. ITO (2023)104 ITR 694 (Chd)(Trib) Urmila Garg (Smt.) v. ITO (2023)104 ITR 694 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Capital gains-Compensation for compulsory acquisition of commercial land from National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)-Clarificatory circular was issued by CBDT subsequent to the date of filing return-Eligible to file rectification application, claim of exemption of assessee under RFCTLARR Act was directed to be allowed by the AO. [S. 45, 56(2)(viii),139, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 S.96]

Kishor Shankar Garve v. Dy. CIT (2023) 200 ITD 461 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-First appeal was dismissed-Second appeal-Abuse of process of Court-Appeal is dismissed.[S. 80IB,253]

DCIT v. Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills (2023) 104 ITR 684 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Capital or revenue-Excise duty refund and Interest subsidy as revenue receipts-Rectification application pursuant to jurisdictional High Court-Tribunal held that CIT(A) is right in directing AO to carry out necessary rectification. [S. 4]