TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal emphasizes need for evidence of tax deduction to avoid double taxation, suspends demand on proof.</h1> <h3>ACIT – LTU Versus M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited</h3> ACIT – LTU Versus M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited - TMI Issues:Appeal against CIT (A)'s orders in multiple assessment years regarding the credit for tax deducted at source without all certificates submitted.Analysis:In this case, the Revenue filed appeals against the CIT (A)'s orders concerning the credit for tax deducted at source where all certificates were not submitted by the assessee. The CIT (A) allowed credit where certificates were filed but not where they were missing, leading to a dispute. The Revenue argued that credit should only be given if certificates were filed as per section 199 and 203 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in a similar case to direct the AO not to recover the amount in the absence of certificates. However, the Revenue contended that the case law cited was not applicable to the current scenario as no evidence was provided that tax had actually been deducted.The counsel for the assessee referred to section 205, highlighting that once tax is deducted, credit may not be given without evidence, and demand cannot be enforced as per the section. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in a related case, it was emphasized that recovery of tax deducted at source from the person against whom it was deducted is barred under section 205. The judgment in the cited case clarified that the bar under section 205 operates once tax deduction is established, regardless of TDS certificate issuance. Thus, the liability to pay income tax if deducted at source lies with the employer, and the employee should not be called to pay the tax again.The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented and set aside the CIT (A)'s order, directing the AO to request the assessee to provide evidence that tax was indeed deducted by the other party. While credit for tax deducted at source may not be given until certificates are filed, the demand should be kept in abeyance if satisfactory evidence is presented to the AO. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for evidence of tax deduction even in the absence of TDS certificates to prevent double taxation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
