2015 (8) TMI 1551 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of petitioner, upholds insurer's tax deduction, allows adjustment in Income Tax Returns.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sita Kunwar and Ors.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Tribunal's order. It held that the insurer was justified in deducting tax at source on ... TDS u/s 194A - amount of interest deposited with the Motor Accident Claims - HELD THAT:- When interest is paid by any person, who is not an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, he is liable to deduct income-tax at the rate in force As it would quite apparent that the award amount inclusive of interest in the present case has been deposited by the petitioner Company on 25.6.2003, 14.7.2003, 28.5.2003, 11.7.2003 and 24.7.2003 i.e. after 1st June, 2003, the date on which clause (ix) of sub-section (3) of Section 194-A of the Act came into force, which obliges the deductor to make any deduction at source on an amount paid by way of the interest on the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In view of the specific provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, the petitioner Company was duty bound to deduct the amount of income-tax from the amount of interest deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for being disbursed to the respondents/claimants. In the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ramesh Kumar Tamrakar and others [2010 (12) TMI 1340 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] it has been clearly held by this Court that in view of the provisions contained in clause (ix) of sub-section (3) of Section 194-A of the Act, if the interest component of the award had been deposited after 1-6-2003, the Insurance Company is duty bound to deduct T.D.S. from the amount of interest paid by it. Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in holding that the petitioner Insurance Company ought not to have deducted the tax at source from the amount of interest paid to the respondents/claimants, as such, the impugned order dated 8.10.2004 deserves to and is accordingly set aside and it is held that the petitioner Company is absolutely justified in deducting tax at source while making the payment of the award inclusive of the interest. In consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to and is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside, Issues involved:Impugning order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on tax deduction at source under Section 194-A of Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Compliance with Section 194-A(3)(ix) of Income Tax Act, 1961The petitioner, an insurer, challenged the order of the Claims Tribunal directing payment without tax deduction under Section 194-A. The petitioner argued that compliance with Section 194-A(3)(ix) was necessary, and failure would lead to penalties under Section 271-C of the Act. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in not allowing tax deduction at source. The respondents did not respond.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 194-A of Income Tax Act, 1961The court examined Section 194-A, emphasizing clause (ix) which applies to interest on compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. This provision, effective from June 1, 2003, mandates deducting tax at source on such interest payments. The definition of 'interest' under Section 2(28-A) was crucial in determining the applicability of tax deduction.Issue 3: Precedent and Legal ObligationsReferring to a previous case, the court highlighted that insurers must deduct T.D.S. on interest components of awards deposited post-June 1, 2003. The judgment emphasized the duty of the petitioner to comply with tax deduction requirements under Section 194-A(3)(ix) to avoid penalties.Conclusion:The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Tribunal's order. It held that the insurer was justified in deducting tax at source on interest payments, as mandated by Section 194-A. The respondents were allowed to claim adjustment in their Income Tax Returns. The judgment emphasized strict compliance with tax laws and upheld the petitioner's actions. No costs were awarded in the case.