9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.2,42,060/- holding that the assessee had not admitted the IDS liability of Rs.12,25,000/ during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I T Act. 2. holding that the assessee added back the amount of Audit Fee of Rs.1,10,300/- in its income suo motto and hence, there is no need to charge IDS on this amount and interest of Rs.1430/- thereon ignoring the fact that offering the income for taxation does not absolve the deductor from the liability u/s 201{1)/201(1A) of the I T Act. 3. holding that IDS is not required to be deducted u/s 194J and 194C of the I T Act on the payments on which the deductor failed to deduct IDS. 4. in deleting the IDS liability including interest amounting to Rs.44,24,200/- on expenses of Rs.19.50 Cr. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the TDS liability including interest amounting to Rs.44,24,200/- on expenses of Rs.19.50 Cr. for FY 2010-11 and Rs.18.55 Cr. for FY 2009-10. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that party-wise details were not filed at the time of proceedings despite several opportunities given to file the same. 5. deleting the interest of Rs.3,85,785/- correctly computed as per provisions of Section 201(1A) on delayed salary and non-salary payments for the FY 2009-10 & 2010-11. 6. holding that the AO can verify details by accesing the data from the IMSDL site and AO has not bothered to verify the details. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to submit the details. 7. The appellant crav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fted from Manesar to Okhla on 21.02.2012 and these facts were not considered by the ld Assessing Officer. Therefore he noted that deductor has deposited the TDS according to the law and if there is any shortfall after verification by the ITO (TDS) then directed to charge the interest as per law. Hence, he allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The ld Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the ld Assessing Officer whereas none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the issue is now decided on the basis of available information on record. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the lower authorities. 8. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of Rs. 1,10, 300/- as in the computation of income for relevant financial year i.e. 2010- 2011 provisions for audit fees, and added back to the income suo motto. The AO(TDS) had charged TDS @ 10% in such provision of Rs. 1,10,300/- of Rs. 11,030/-. Therefore, there is no need to charge TDS on the said amount. So the amount of Rs. 11030/- is deleted. Ground # 3 is allowed. 6.2 Ground No. 4 : The AO (TDS) has charged interest of Rs. 1434/- on TDS of Rs. 11,030/- which is unwarranted and hence deleted. 6.3 Ground No. 5 :The deductor company has filed detail of payment on which TDS was not deducted on which deduction of TDS was not required. Detail was also filed before me and before A.O. at the time of hearing. Detail shows, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of Rsf6,84,200/- is deleted. 6.7 Ground no,9:-That the Quarterly return of TDS was filed by the deductor company for the relevant financial years in question and TDS was deducted under the salary head as per the provision of section 192B of the I.T.Act, 1961 and TDS was deposited with interest and employee detail was uploaded with the Quarterly return of TDS. Detail can also be verified by accessing the data from the NSDL site, A.O. has not bothered to verify the details and fact by accessing the NSDL site. Details of TDS (including interest there on) under section 192B for the relevant financial year i.e. 2009-10 & 2010-11 are hereby enclosed in the paper book. No action is required under this ground. 6.8 Ground no.10: Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction or nonpayment of tax and then charge interest if any. The ld DR could not explain to us how revenue is aggrieved by the direction of ld CIT(A). according to us the ld CIT(A) has protected the interest of revenue. Therefore, we dismiss ground No. 6 of the appeal of the revenue. 12. In the result appeal No. 5882/Del/2013 for AY 2010-11 of revenue is dismissed. 13. Now we come to appeal No. 5883/Del/2013 which is also based on similar grounds wherein demand raised by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 5245174/- vide order dated 23.03.2012 with respect to FY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The above appeal is against the same order of ld CIT(A) deleting the demand of Rs. 5245174/- raised by the Assessing Officer by passing an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
