9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. Levy of interest u/s 234B - Held that:- Neither the AO, nor the Ld. CIT(A) have narrated the facts of the case under which the assessee has been found liable by the AO to pay interest u/s 234B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has given relief by deleting the interest charged u/s 234B on the basis that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, by the decision of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 886 - Uttarkhand High Court). Nothing has been argued on behalf of the revenue that the decision followed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not cover the issue on hand. The revenue submits that it has preferred SLP against the said decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd. (supra). The ratio laid down by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowing an amount of ₹ 44,97,41,405/- u/s 40a(ia) of the Act, on the ground that tax should have been deducted at source u/s 194J of the Act instead of s.194C done by the assessee. In other words, the disallowance was made on the ground that there was short deduction of tax at source due to wrong application of the provisions of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 30,31,06,928/- without examining that the TDS made is not at the correct rate as per Chapter XV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of M/s. Solutions Inforsystems Pvt.Ltd. vide order dt. 12.12.2013, at para 9 has held as follows. 9. In ground no.2 the issue is whether deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made when tax has been deducted at source u/s 194C instead of 194J. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hero MotorCorp followed the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court and held as follows. The Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal (ITA no. 183 of 2012 has held as follows: We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee has to pay into Government Account. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate that too under the bona fide belief that deduction was properly made, we accept the contention of the assessee. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K.Tekrisal (supra) this ground is allowed deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia). 9.1. Respectfully following we allow ground no.2. 6.1. Respectfully following the same we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 7. Ground no.3 is on levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. 7.1. The Ld. AR argued that the issue raised in this ground is also covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions, besides the decision of Hon ble Uttrakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
