Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
07.06.2014 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Saturday, June 7, 2014
I. A Helpful Presentation:

[ Contribution by CA. Sanjay Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA; and contributor is available at ]

"Special provision for Full Value of Consideration in certain cases - Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961"

(Please click here)  


II.  Direct Tax Case Laws:

1.  LSG Sky Chef (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 4828 (MUM.) of 2012, Date of Order: 27.03.2014, ITAT-Mumbai

TDS Certificate to be considered while allowing credit over form 26AS in case of variation between two.

The assessee, by furnishing the TDS certificate/s bearing the full details of the tax deducted at source, credit for which is being claimed, has discharged the primary onus on it toward claiming credit in its respect. He, accordingly, cannot be burdened any further in the matter. The revenue is fully entitled to conduct proper verification in the matter and satisfy itself with regard to the veracity of the assessee’s claim/s, but cannot deny the assessee credit in respect of TDS without specifying any infirmity in its claim/s. Form 26AS is a statement generated at the end of the revenue, and the assessee cannot be in any manner held responsible for any discrepancy therein or for the non-matching of TDS reflected therein with the assessee’s claim/s. Where so, no doubt a matter of concern, is one which is to be investigated and pursued by the revenue, which is suitably armed by law therefor.

The plea that the deductor may have specified a wrong TAN, so that the TDS may stand reflected in the account of another deductee, is no reason or ground for not allowing credit for the TDS in the hands of the proper deductee. The onus for the purpose lies squarely at the door of the revenue.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Ginni Filaments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 178 of 2006, Date of Order: 21.10.2013, Allahabad High Court

Companies attracting MAT to pay interest U/s 234B and 234C upon default in payment of advance tax.

Judgment of Supreme Court in Jt. CIT v. Rolta India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 470 relied duly stating that S. 115JB is a self-contained code pertaining to MAT, which imposed liability for payment of advance tax on MAT companies and, therefore, where such companies defaulted in payment of advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JB, it was liable to pay interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.

Thus, it can be concluded that interest under Sections 234B and 234C shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB. For the aforestated reasons, Circular No. 13/2001 dated 9.11.2001 issued by CBDT reported in 252 ITR(St.)50 has no application. Moreover, in any event, para 2 of that Circular itself indicates that a large number of companies liable to be taxed under MAT provisions of Section 115JB were not making advance tax payments. In the said circular, it has been clarified that Section 115JB is a self-contained code and thus, all companies were liable for payment of advance tax under Section 115JB and consequently provisions of Sections 234B and 234C imposing interest on default in payment of advance tax were also applicable.

(Please click here for judgment)  

  III. Today's Headlines:    

  1. MCA New Version of Forms Available  (Click for detail)
  2. Retrospective taxation on India Inc’s mind as it meets Jaitley  (Click for detail)
  3. Communications from CPC(TDS)  (Click for detail)


 Golden Rules:

  "Patience and silence are powerful energies.
Patience makes us mentally strong.
Silence makes us emotionally strong."


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now