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>Dismissal of Writ Petitions Challenging Income Tax Notices on TDS Payments</h1> <h3>Manish Bansal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> Manish Bansal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues:Challenging show cause notices for not deducting TDS on payments made to Gas Authority of India (GAIL) under Sections 194C and 194-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Challenging notices issued under Section 148 for reopening of assessment due to failure to deduct TDS on transportation charges and royalty.Maintainability of writ petitions against the notices under Sections 194C and 148.Analysis:Challenging Show Cause Notices for Non-Deduction of TDS:The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing glassware and bangles, challenged show cause notices for not deducting TDS on payments made to GAIL for transportation and service charges, and royalty under Sections 194C and 194-J of the Income Tax Act. The notices under Section 147/148 were issued based on the belief that a significant portion of the billing amount escaped assessment due to non-deduction of TDS. The petitioners contended that the transportation charges by GAIL did not attract TDS under Section 194-C and that GAIL had paid taxes on these charges. They also argued that royalty on natural gas did not fall under Section 194-C. The High Court found these challenges premature as objections had not been filed, and alternative remedies were available before the Income Tax Authorities.Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against Notices Under Sections 194C and 148:The High Court dismissed the writ petitions against the notices under Sections 194C and 148, emphasizing that objections had not been filed, rendering the petitions premature. The court noted that the petitioners had not suffered any prejudice at that stage, and factual issues regarding contract conditions and tax payments by GAIL could be addressed before the Income Tax Officer (TDS)/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Citing the judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., the court directed the petitioners to file objections within a reasonable time, subject to further objections, and maintained that no merits of the issues were considered in the dismissal of the writ petitions.Conclusion:The High Court found the challenges to show cause notices and reopening of assessments premature due to the petitioners' failure to file objections. The court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies before the Income Tax Authorities for addressing the issues raised. The dismissal of the writ petitions was based on the grounds of premature filing and the need to exhaust available remedies, without delving into the merits of the contentions presented by the petitioners.
TaxTMI 