9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Decided against assesse. Non deduction of tax at source u/s.194C - assessee-indefault under section 201 - Held that:- Simply because the amount was disallowed in the assessment made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee cannot be treated as assessee-indefault under section 201 in respect of the same amount. Rather, when the assessee is found to be an assessee-in-default in respect of the TDS amount, then out of many consequences, one of the consequences, is disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We, therefore, do not agree with the order of the CIT(A) in respect of not treating the assessee as assessee-in-default in respect of ₹ 4,98,43,087/-, on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilendra Kumar Yadav, JM And N S Saini, AM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P M Maharshi, CA For the Respondent : Shri Avinash Kumar, DR ORDER Per N. S. Saini, Accountant Member These are cross appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Rajkot dated 10.11.2014 for the Asstt.Year 2012-13. ITA No.739/RJT/2014 - Asstt.Year 2012-13 (Assessee's Appeal) 2. The first ground of appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO treating the assessee as assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act for ₹ 14,48,42,236/- for non-deduction of tax under section 194C of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee made year end provision for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,48,42,326/- and held as under: 4.9 After holding that the appellant was required to deduct tax u/s.194C(2), the question which requires to be further considered is whether the appellant has to be held in default in respect of the tax not deducted by it. In this regard, it is seen that the total year end provision was ₹ 14,48,42,236/-. However, as per the tax audit report submitted by the appellant,. ₹ 4,98,43,087/- have been disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) in the computation of income. Also, ₹ 9,49,99,239/- have been treated as liability of TDS discharged subsequent to end of financial year, i.e. tax deducted and deposited in government account, before signing of tax audit report/due date of filing of return. It is thus ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n facts in rising demand for short deduction of TDS on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. having TAN No.RKT100185D on provisions of ₹ 10,43,91,054/- pertaining to other TDS assessee's who are having separate TAN Nos. Ltd. CIT(A)-II erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same. 3. Ld.ACIT(TDS has erred in law as well as on facts in levying interest u/s.201(1A) of the I.T.At,1961 on account of failure to deduct tax on the year end provisions of ₹ 14,48,42,236/- and ld.CIT(A)-II erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s.201(1A) of the I.T.Act. 7. At the time of hearing, the AR of the assessee has not pressed these grounds, hence, they are dismissed as not pressed. ITA No.722/RJT/2015 - Asstt.Year 2012-13 (Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of filing of return, and the balance amount of ₹ 4,98,43,087/- was disallowed in the assessment of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A), in view of disallowance of entire expenses of ₹ 4,98,43,087/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act held that the assessee is not an assessee-in-default in respect of the same. 11. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in respect of ₹ 4,98,43,087/-. 13. The DR contended that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is independent of liability under section 201 of the Act. On other hand, AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 14. We find that it is not in dispute that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We order according. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed, 17. The ground no.2 of the appeal of the Revenue reads as under: 1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts of the case in holding that tax is required to be deducted at source u/s.194C of the Act on payment of pest control charges and the same is not professional services and therefore tax not deducted u/s.194J of the Act. 18. The brief facts of the case are that the AO held that the assessee had paid ₹ 24,100/- for Pest Control Services on which should have been deducted under section 194J. The assessee had deducted tax u/s.194C. The AO computed the net shortfall of the tax at ₹ 1,911/-. 19. On app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
