9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,361 out of which the second respondent deducted a sum of Rs. 3,040 towards income-tax and surcharge and paid the balance to the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this court challenging the deduction at source from the amount that he is entitled to as a winner of the jackpot ticket. It appears that he made representations to both the respondents that deduction of income-tax at source is not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same cannot be exigible to tax in view of s. 4(3)(vii) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Relying heavily on this decision, the petitioner contends that the deduction at the source in the present case is unsustainable in law. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram and Mr. S. V. Subramaniam, learned counsels appearing for the first and second respondents, respectively, brought to my notice the subsequent change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not exceed one thousand rupees in the aggregate." From this, it is clear that any receipts of a casual and non-recurring nature over and above Rs. 1,000 are taken away from the exemption, which was not the case under the old Act, and even under the new Act before April 1, 1972. This important amendment introduced by the Amending Act of 1972 makes all the difference and the reliance placed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to accept the contention of the petitioner that the deduction at source by the second respondent is illegal. Two other important sections which may be of relevance are s. 194BB and s. 203. Section 194BB speaks of deduction, at the source, of income by way of taxation which has been done by the second respondent. The second: respondent has also a statutory obligation to discharge under s. 203. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
