9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of non-deduction of TDS. Also AO has framed the assessment after necessary verification about the payment made to M/s Bansal Cargo Movers which is evident from assessment order itself. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessment order has been framed by the AO after due application of mind. Accordingly, the same cannot be held as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of non-verification. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 272/AHD/2023 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2023 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R For the Revenue : Shri Sudhendu Das, CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provision of section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of short deduction of TDS. Thus, the Ld. PCIT held the assessment order as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by observing as under: 7. In the light of the aforementioned discussion and bearing in mind the entirety of the case, I am of the opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on 29.12.2020 is erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as discussed in para 5 above, since the order has been passed without making adequate examination regarding satisfaction of section 194C r.w.s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. By virtue of the powers vested in me u/s. 263 of the IT Act, 1 hereby set-aside the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of CIT Vs. Prayas Engineering Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1237 of 2014 vide order dated 17/11/2014. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: 3. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Revenue and considered the submissions. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the circular issued by CBDT is very clear and the issue is governed by section 194J. The learned ITAT, while considering the question has observed in para-17 as under: 17. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that in respect of payment made by assessee to M/s. Elecon Information Technology Ltd. (EITL) and M/s. Akaash Mechatonics Ltd. (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has claimed the benefit of two decisions, one by the Kolkata Bench and other by the Mumbai Bench of ITAT. In the case of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy S Jassobhoy (supra) the assessee made payment to the consultants by way of salary after deduction of tax at source under sec. 192 and claimed the deduction for the same. Those consultants were working for a period of two years with the assessee. However, the AO applied the provisions of sec. 194-J. In this case it was held that provisions of sec. 192 were applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. Another decision replied upon by the assessee is of Kolkata Bench in the case of DCIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra). In this case also the difference in shortfall was due to the applicability of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
