9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1097 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 192 - provision for expenses - non deduction of tds on Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP), leave encashment, gratuity and bonus - assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - assessee submitted that the provisions of section 192 not required at the time of entry made in the books - Held that - Refereeing to assessee s contention that it is not actual payment but only provisions were made for the liability to be discharged in future this fact has not been disputed by the AO that these are only provisions made on account of Leave encashment, Bonus and Gratuity expenses. Hence in view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tej Quebecor Printing Ltd. 2006 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT when there is no actual payment of these perquisites being part of salary, then the liability to deduct tax at source under section 192 of the Act does not arise. - decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of the assessee company as a defaulter under Section 192 of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on provisions made in the books. 2. Determination of TDS liability on various expenditures like ESOP, leave encashment, gratuity, and bonus. Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of the Assessee Company as a Defaulter under Section 192: The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee company should be treated as a defaulter for not deducting TDS on certain provisions made in the books, specifically under Section 192 of the IT Act. The assessee argued that the obligation to deduct TDS arises only upon actual payment and not at the time of making provisions in the books. The assessee referenced the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tej Quebecor Printing Ltd., which held that Section 192 requires tax deduction at the time of payment and not at the time of accrual or crediting provisions. The AO, however, held the assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on provisions related to ESOP, leave encashment, gratuity, and bonus, stating that TDS should be deducted on credit or payment, whichever is earlier. 2. Determination of TDS Liability on Various Expenditures: ESOP Expenses: The AO noted that the assessee made a provision of ?1,09,84,200/- for ESOP but did not deduct TDS. The assessee contended that the TDS obligation arises only when the employee exercises the option, not at the time of granting the option. The tribunal agreed with the assessee, referencing the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's decision, which emphasized that both accrual and actual payment must exist for TDS deduction under Section 192. Since the option was not exercised during the year, the tribunal held that the provisions of Section 192 were not applicable. Leave Encashment, Bonus, and Gratuity Expenditures: The tribunal observed that the provisions made for leave encashment, bonus, and gratuity were not actual payments but future liabilities. Following the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Tej Quebecor Printing Ltd., the tribunal concluded that no TDS is required under Section 192 for these provisions since there was no actual payment. The tribunal also noted that the revenue's reliance on the Bangalore Bench's decision in IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO TDS LTU was misplaced, as it did not pertain to Section 192 but to other sections requiring TDS on credit or payment. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 192 on the provisions made for ESOP, leave encashment, bonus, and gratuity since no actual payment was made during the year. The appeal of the assessee was allowed. The judgment emphasized the distinction between accrual and actual payment for TDS obligations under Section 192, aligning with the Delhi High Court's interpretation.
|
