|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1.Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI, WPC No. 31498/2013, Date of Order: 18.12.2013, (Kerala High Court)
S. 234E: High Court grants interim stay on levy of fee for failure to file TDS statement
S. 234E
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 provides
for levy of a fee of Rs. 200/- for each day’s delay in filing the
statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) or Tax Collected at Source
(TCS). The constitutional validity of s. 234E has been challenged in the
Kerala High Court. Vide an interim order dated 18.12.2013, the High
Court has admitted the Petition and granted a stay of proceedings for a
period of two months.
(Please click here to view Judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus VIRENDARA KUMAR GUPTA, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 563/2013, 22.11.2013, High Court of Delhi.
Whether
penalty levied u/s 271AAA on members of AOP is rightly deleted by
tribunal in a case where income initially disclosed and declared in the
hands of AOP is subsequently disclosed in the individual hands of
members forming AOP.
Held Yes
The AOP
consisted of Virendara Kumar Gupta, Sarad Jain and Sudhir Jain.
Initially, the AOP had declared the entire undisclosed income. AOPs are
taxed at maximum marginal rate, whereas individuals are taxed on
cascading scale. The Assessing Officer had himself given tax credit to
individual members of the tax paid by AOP. AOP consisted of three
persons, including the present respondent-assessee. The tribunal has
taken the realistic and pragmatic view and accordingly deleted the
penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act noticing the factual matrix.
„Sugandh Sansar‟ had filed „nil‟ return of income only after the
Assessing Officer had decided that Rs.12.5 crores should be equally
divided and taxed in the hands of Virendara Kumar Gupta, Sarad Jain and
Sudhir Jain. The three respondent-assessees had filed appeal before the
Commissioner (Appeals) questioning the said order/position. Meanwhile,
the AOP filed an application under Section 264, which was accepted by
the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VII and in terms of the said
order, the individual assessees withdrew the appeals. Taxes and
applicable interest were paid on the undisclosed income. Details of
nature of undisclosed income and manner of earning was recorded in the
statement of Virendara Kumar Gupta. It was stated that the income was
derived from trading transactions not recorded in the books.
In light
of the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere and
entertain the present appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed.
(Please click here to view the Judgement)
3.
CIT (TDS) vs. Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure, D.B. I.T.A.
235/222/238/239 of 2011, Date of Order : 01.07.2013, Rajasthan High
Court.
Whether
TDS is required on the amount of service tax that was to be paid
separately and was not included in the fees for professional services or
fees for technical services?
Held No.
In the
light of Circulars dated 28.04.2008 and 30.06.2008. The words, “any sum
paid”, used in Section 194J of the Act, relate to fees for professional
services, or fees fortechnical services. As per the terms of agreement,
the amount of service tax was to be paid separately and was not included
in the fees for professional services or fees for technical services.
The dispute relates to a point as to whether TDS is to be deducted on
the amount payable on account of service tax or not? since the amount of
service tax was to be paid separately, therefore, the same was not
subject to TDS.
(Please click here to view the Judgement)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now