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>Applicability of Income Tax Act Sec 206C Upheld for Collections, Appeals Dismissed</h1> <h3>Apar Mukhya Adhikari Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Allahabad</h3> Apar Mukhya Adhikari Versus Income Tax Officer (TDS), Allahabad - TMI Issues:Applicability of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act to the collection made by the appellant.Analysis:The appeals arose from a common order of the CIT(A) regarding the applicability of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act to the appellant's collections. The appellant contested the order passed by the ITO(TDS) under Section 206C(6A)/206C(7) of the Act, arguing that the provisions of Section 206C(1C) were not applicable to them. The appellant collected amounts for Tehbazari, Tehbazari-Vahan Stand, and Balu-Morang, Gitti-Bolder-Vahan Shulk, claiming they should not be treated as amounts for a parking lot or toll plaza, thus not subject to tax collection at source (TCS). The Assessing Officer believed the collections fell under TCS, leading to short collection and interest calculations under Section 206(7) of the Act.The appellant explained that the collections were for regulating hawking businesses and granting permissions for temporary vending spots, not for parking lots or toll plazas. However, the Assessing Officer viewed the collections as tolls, citing legal precedents defining tolls and the appellant's role as a local authority. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's order, prompting the appellant to appeal.During the appeal, the appellant argued that the collections were not akin to tolls or for parking lots, emphasizing the nature of the collections and the absence of authorization under Section 206C(1C) to collect tax for granting leases or licenses. However, the tribunal disagreed, referencing a case where tolls were defined as compensation for temporary land use or vehicle passage. Since the appellant collected fees from vendors and parking stands, the tribunal deemed the collections similar to tolls and parking fees, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, all appeals by the appellant were dismissed.In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the applicability of Section 206C to the appellant's collections, considering them akin to tolls and parking fees, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
