Brand new Assessee try a government-owned company, which was for the transportation of products, guests, and parcels etc

Brand new Assessee try a government-owned company, which was for the transportation of products, guests, and parcels etc

in domestic and in the world market owing to aircrafts. The new Assessee was frequently processing their TDS return by the depositing fees in time in accordance with the Money-income tax Regulations, 1962. An order significantly less than area 200A of Act, was introduced and you will thereafter your order under Area 154 of your Operate try obtained of the Assessee having short deduction off TDS on account of non-provision regarding Dish in the event of Motor Book Money B.V. (ELFC), a non-resident company, taxed resident during the Netherland, was not mentioned during return submitting because foreign team didn’t have Pan. Assessee stated to have pulled an engine into lease significantly less than an enthusiastic Contract from Engine Rent Financing B.V. This new Assessee did not deduct the fresh TDS regarding percentage but placed from their account and you may immersed it costs. Aggrieved of the same, new Assessee preferred an interest prior to CIT (A). The latest CIT(A) overlooked the fresh new told you focus. Aggrieved because of the same, the fresh Assessee well-known an appeal before Tribunal.

The newest Tribunal depending on the option out-of Dy. DIT v. Serum Institute regarding India Ltd. 56 taxmann step one (Pune – Trib.), Dy. CIT v. Infosys BPO Ltd. [They Interest No. 1333 (Bang.) away from 2014, acquisition dated twenty-seven-9-2019] as well as the judgment from Hon’ble Delhi Highest Judge in the eventuality of Danisco Asia (P.) Ltd. v. Commitment away from Asia ninety taxmann Taxman ITR 539 held you to definitely specifications off Section 206AA of your own Act doesn’t override beneficial terms from DTAA anywhere between Asia and you can Netherland. For this reason, the brand new Assessee try permitted the benefit of the DTAA and you will had correctly deducted the newest taxation 10% in place of 20% as per Area 206AA of the Income tax Act, 1961.

S. 254(1) : Attention (Tribunal) – Additional crushed – Admissibility – soil relating to required needs envisaged you/s 151 – court crushed – accepted – [sec 151, ITAT Guidelines, 1963 roentgen. 11]

O is actually convinced without disallowance against allege produced you/s 54F – Revision by PCIT out-of Comparison acquisition passed u/s 143(3) overturned

Tribunal acknowledge the other floor being purely an appropriate ground and this visits the underlying of your own matter and you will exact same cannot need new things become investigated.(AY. 2013 – 14)

S. 263 : Inform – Purchase passed u/s 143(3) r/w sec 153B, immediately following acceptance regarding Jt CIT you/s 153D – Enhance of Acquisition u/s 263 passed by PCIT instead of recognition out of JT CIT is nullity and you can gap ab initio.

The other floor spent my youth from the assessee that the impugned order u/s 147 r

Tribunal held one benaughty to PCIT does not have any legislation so you’re able to just do it u/s 263 from the Purchase passed u/s 143(3) r/w sec153B, if you have zero enhance out-of acceptance out of Jt CIT you/s. 153D. (AY. 2017-18)

S. 263: Revision – Scope – Admissibility out of data files caught regarding third party – No corroborative facts caused listing – considered as inadmissible proof when you look at the proceedings you/s 263

On assessee’s case, duplicates off files, letters and you can strength section demonstrations was indeed discover regarding pc out-of 3rd party becoming an ex boyfriend-employee. In addition, no incriminating files otherwise topic was in fact discovered on the arms out-of assessee.

Into the revise legal proceeding PCIT believed brand new said records seized away from third party as the evidences and you may continued on process you/s 263.

Tribunal kept one to PCIT with proceeded without having any corroborative evidences, nor possess acquired certificate u/s 65B(4) of Proof Act to prove the latest contents of captured documents, the same is not admissible inside evidence, the order you/s 263 was depraved.(AY. 2017-18)

S. 263: Change – Erroneous & prejudicial acquisition – A great.O checked brand new data provided according to inquiry during Assessment – A.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.