9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments and consequential levy of interest u/s 201(1A) for Rs. 1,12,598/-. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee, being resident corporate assessee engaged in providing skincare services and holding TAN-MUMK-13061- G, was subjected to an order u/s 201(1) read with section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 26/03/2014. The Ld. AO, upon perusal of Tax Audit Report for impugned AY, noticed that the assessee made provision of Rent & Professional fees amounting to Rs. 14,41,875/- & Rs. 16,85,877/- respectively but failed to deduct TDS of Rs. 1,44,188/- and Rs. 1,68,588/- from the said payment which resulted into raising of impugned demand of Rs. 3,12,776/- against the assessee u/s 201(1) and consequential in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not crystallized and therefore, the question of TDS did not arise at all and the lower authorities have erred in treating the assessee as assessee-in-default. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncement for various contentions:- (i) DIT Vs Ericsson Communications Ltd [Delhi High Court ITA 106/2002 order dated 04/09/2015] (ii) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT [Karnataka High Court 67 Taxmann.com 259 02/02/2016] (iii) Alliance Media & Entertainment Ltd. [ITAT Mumbai 79 Taxmann.com 114 08/02/2017] (iv) IDBI Vs ITO [ITAT Mumbai 107 ITD 0045 31/07/2006] (iv) IBM India Private Limited Vs ITO TDS [ITAT Bangalore ITA No. 749 to 753/Bang/2012 order dated 14/05/2015] 4. Per contra Ld. DR placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment as per law and deposited the same. If this is so, the assessee could not be required to deposit the same again by raising this demand. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to verify the fact that whether the assessee, in subsequent years, has reversed the said amounts and deducted the due TDS at the time of actual payment and deposited the same to the credit of central government. If so, the said demand of Rs. 3,12,776/- raised u/s 201(1) shall stand deleted. 7. However, so far interest u/s 201(IA) is concerned, we find that the assessee is liable to pay the same since we have already noted that the expenses against which TDS was deductible was not mere provisions and the payees were identifiable and the assessee himself disallowed the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
