We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Appeal Allowed: TDS Order Quashed as Time-Barred under Section 201(3)(i) The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-38, Delhi for A.Y. 2011-12, holding it as time-barred under section 201(3)(i) of the Act. ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal Allowed: TDS Order Quashed as Time-Barred under Section 201(3)(i)
The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-38, Delhi for A.Y. 2011-12, holding it as time-barred under section 201(3)(i) of the Act. The order directing TDS payment on CAM charges was quashed due to exceeding the limitation period, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant based on a similar case precedent. The onus of verifying tax details was deemed the department's responsibility, leading to the appeal's allowance without discussing the case's merits. The order was pronounced on 31.05.2023.
Issues Involved: 1. Validity of order u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act due to limitation. 2. Onus of verifying tax paid and income declared by the deductee.
Summary: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A)-38, Delhi dated 31.01.2020 for A.Y. 2011-12. The grievance raised was that the order was invalid and beyond the period of limitation u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act. The appellant contended that the order was void ab initio and erred in placing the onus on the appellant to verify tax details, which should have been the department's responsibility.
2. The Assessing Officer directed the assessee to pay TDS on CAM charges under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The dispute arose regarding the TDS rate applicable to CAM charges, with the AO insisting on 10% under section 194I instead of the 2% deducted by the assessee under section 194C. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment, leading to the appeal.
3. The appellant argued that the order dated 30.03.2018 was time-barred as it exceeded the limitation period. The coordinate Bench's decision in a similar case supported the appellant's claim that the amendment to extend the time limit was not retrospective and could not save the order passed beyond the original limitation period.
4. The Tribunal, following the precedent, held the order dated 30.03.2018 as barred by limitation and consequently quashed it, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The merits of the case were not discussed due to the order's invalidity.
5. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 31.05.2023.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
