Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer could depart from the earlier determination of tax deduction at source and insist on deduction at 15% on gross payments, or whether the assessee was entitled to a certificate under section 197(1) in line with the earlier order of the higher authority.
Analysis: The record showed that for earlier assessment years the tax deduction question had already been considered and the receipts from firm function services had been subjected to a much lower withholding rate on the footing that only the income element was taxable. The impugned order, however, adopted a fresh and substantially higher rate without any cogent material or satisfactory basis for departing from the prior considered determination. The availability of a revision remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the subordinate authority acted in manifest departure from a superior authority's order and the exercise of discretion became arbitrary. In fiscal administration, departures from an earlier binding or considered view must rest on valid and objective reasons.
Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded. The order directing withholding at 15% was quashed and the authority was directed to issue the certificate under section 197(1) in accordance with the earlier order.