|
II. Useful Case Laws:
1. CIT (TDS) Vs. M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ITA No. 261 of 2012, Date of Decision: 13.02.2013, High court of Punjab & Haryana
Whether TDS u/s 194H shall be deducted by BSNL/MTNL on payment of commission paid to Subscribers Trunk Dialing (STD) / Public Call Office (PCO)?
Held:
It is well settled in law that a tax withholding liability is a vicarious liability, as a part of tax collection mechanism, in the sense that when there is no primary liability of the taxpayer, proxy liability of the tax deductor also does not survive. In a situation like the one, we are in seisin of, in which the CBDT itself accepts that there is hardly any primary tax liability of the recipients of income. It is highly contentious an issue whether or not vicarious tax withholding liability can be invoked. As a matter of fact, the Central Board of Taxes has taken a stand that the demands are not to be enforced on BSNL and MTNL offices except in the cases where taxes have been deducted at source but not paid over to the revenue.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Delhi Housing & Finance Corporation, ITA No. 38/2013, Judgment delivered on: 12.02.2013, High court of Delhi
AO not relay upon an Inspector’s report while estimating the rate of plots with which the respondent had not been confronted.
It is also pertinent to note that he had only made verbal inquiries with regard to the prevailing market rate of the property and had not collected any instances of actual sales in the said areas. Furthermore, the inquiry that he made was as on the date of his visit, that is on 02.03.2006, whereas the sales had taken place in the financial year ending 31.03.2003. He also stated that he had made inquiries from only 2-3 persons. It is obvious that when such statements are made in cross-examination, his report with regard to the rate of land being 6,000/- per sq. yd. to 7,000/- per sq. yd. in the two localities could not have much evidentiary value, if at all. He had specifically indicated in his cross-examination that he had inquired about the likely rate at which he could buy property at that time. Thus, even the rates indicated by him in his report, were not of financial year ending 2003-04 but, were of the date he visited, that is, 02.03.2006.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now