Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Asst./ Dy. Commr. of Income Tax (LTU) Vs. DICGC Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. Nos. 2361 & 2524/Mum/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/02/2012
Related Assessment Year : 2007- 08 & 2008- 09
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Asst./ Dy. Commr. of Income-tax (LTU) Vs. DICGC Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)-  First of all, we will consider the second part of the submission i.e. since the person to whom the payment was made has already offered the same for taxation, hence provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. This is not correct

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

  1. jay says:

    i think we need to see the spirit of provisions rather than blindly following the rules word by word. in my opinion, the scheme of TDS with penalty for non deduction is for ensuring there is no revenue loss to the govt. to penalise a non deduction when the there is no loss of revenue ( as tax is already paid by the deductee) is not in the true spirit of the provisions, but rather a punishing attitude which is not certainly desirable. Various enforcement provisions are meant to ensure non leakage of revenue & if decision are taken to penalise, even in NIL loss of revenue, then a change in attitude / mindset of the tax depatment is very essential. they need to understand & appreciate tnat after al l the deductors are infact enabling them to protect revenue & it is s not the right attitude to penalise, in case the tax remittance is taken care by either of the parties.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
September 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30