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 remits case to Assessing Officer for verification; appeal allowed for statistical purposes.</h1> <h3>Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., Tower-D Versus DCIT (TDS), CPC, Ghaziabad.</h3> Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., Tower-D Versus DCIT (TDS), CPC, Ghaziabad. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Demand upheld by CIT(A) - Rs. 40,55,6302. Legality of intimation under Section 154 and Section 200A3. Demand raised due to processing of tax deduction statement under Section 200A4. Violation of natural justice in issuing intimation under Section 1545. Cancellation of certificates under Section 197 and principles of natural justice6. Non-functional online verification facility for tax deduction certificates7. Assessee's default status under Section 201(1)8. Verification of payees' tax payments before raising demand9. Non-compliance with Section 201(1) proviso and Form 26A submission10. Levy of interest under Section 201(1A) for alleged short-deductionAnalysis:1. The appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s decision upholding a demand of Rs. 40,55,630 against the appellant. The appellant argued that the intimation under Section 154 and Section 200A was legally flawed, as it did not arise from an arithmetical error or incorrect claim apparent from the statement.2. The appellant contended that the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) violated Section 154(3) and principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to show cause. Additionally, the cancellation of certificates under Section 197 was deemed unjust and against natural justice.3. The non-functional online verification facility for tax deduction certificates was highlighted as a factor contributing to the appellant's non-compliance. The appellant argued that without proper verification tools, they could not be considered in default under Section 201(1).4. The appellant raised concerns regarding the CIT(A)'s failure to verify payees' tax payments before raising the demand. It was argued that without this verification, interest liability under Section 201(1A) could not be justified.5. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for thorough verification of various aspects, including the functionality of online verification tools, submission of Form 26A, payees' tax payments, and compliance with Section 201(1) proviso. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and arguments.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper verification and compliance before determining the appellant's default status and interest liability.
TaxTMI 