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>TDS under Section 194B remanded for fresh examination of prize winners' identity and transaction-wise threshold verification</h1> <h3>ITO, TDS, Palakkad Versus District Lottery Officer, Palakkad</h3> ITAT Cochin remanded TDS matter under Section 194B back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appellate authority had failed to examine the identity and ... TDS u/s 194B - identity and genuineness of the prize winners - Whether the threshold prescribed u/s 194B was indeed crossed in each transaction ? - HELD THAT:- We find that at the time of passing of the impugned order, the CIT(A) did not examine the issue of the identity and genuineness of the prize winners. CIT(A) had not sufficiently examined whether the provisions of Section 194B were attracted on a transaction-wise basis. Therefore, a proper factual verification is required to be examined. In light of the above, we find that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Cochin) heard Revenue appeals challenging the CIT(A)'s order dated 05.03.2025, which granted relief to the assessee against TDS demands under Section 194B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), raising a demand of Rs. 2,32,65,540/- for failure to deduct tax on lottery winnings.The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by not verifying the identity and genuineness of prize winners and by failing to examine if each transaction exceeded the TDS threshold under Section 194B. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider these factual and legal aspects.Accordingly, the Tribunal held that 'a proper factual verification is required' and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Both appeals (ITA Nos. 314 and 315/Coch/2025) were allowed for statistical purposes, with the decision in ITA No. 314/Coch/2025 applying mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 315/Coch/2025.Order pronounced on 13.06.2025.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
