Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal upholds decision to delete disallowance under Income Tax Act, corrects TDS application</h1> <h3>DCIT-8 (3) (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, ... TDS u/s 194C or 194J - payment made to the cable operators as Channel Subscription Fee - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The Tribunal noted the earlier decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 [2014 (12) TMI 716 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that such payments were liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C of the Act and not u/s 194J of the Act, as canvassed by the Revenue. The aforesaid precedents continue to hold the field as the same have not been altered by any higher authority and, therefore, in this view of the matter, it has to be held that the Assessing Officer was wrong in concluding that there was a default on the part of the assessee in deducting tax at source on the impugned payment u/s 194C of the Act so as to trigger Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. A mere shortfall in deduction of tax at source would not justify invoking of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in order to disallow the expenditure. The CIT(A) correctly accepted the aforesaid plea and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for shortfall in TDS deduction.2. Interpretation of provisions of Section 194J and Section 194C of the Income Tax Act.3. Validity of the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for shortfall in TDS deduction:The Revenue appealed against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of &8377;35,31,11,238 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee due to a shortfall in tax deduction at source. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the case. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's conclusion of default in TDS deduction was incorrect, and therefore, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, albeit on different grounds.Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of Section 194J and Section 194C of the Income Tax Act:The Assessing Officer believed that the payments made by the assessee to cable operators for carriage fee should have been subject to TDS deduction at 10% under Section 194J of the Act, instead of the 2% deduction under Section 194C. However, the Tribunal, based on precedents, held that the payments were rightly covered under Section 194C and not Section 194J as argued by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the earlier decisions in the assessee's case remained valid and had not been overturned by any higher authority. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's application of Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.Issue 3: Validity of the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer:The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's argument that a mere shortfall in TDS deduction did not warrant the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Tribunal concurred with this view and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on Section 194J for TDS deduction was misplaced, and the disallowance was not justified based on the facts of the case.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, emphasizing the correct interpretation of TDS provisions under the Income Tax Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found