Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a dispute over short collection of TDS due to lower TDS certificates with different TANs issued by deductees. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) raised a demand for tax and interest, but the CIT(A) emphasized the duty of the assessee to inform suppliers about the new TAN and request revised certificates. The Tribunal held that the assessee, as the person responsible for TDS, complied with certificates issued u/s. 197 by deducting tax at source as per rates specified. The genuineness of the certificates was not in question. The procedure for obtaining lower rate deduction certificates under Rule 28(AA) was noted, emphasizing that certificates are valid for the named person responsible for deduction. The Tribunal, citing legal provisions and precedent, ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding no short deduction of tax occurred, and deleted the demand for tax and interest.
The case involved a dispute over short collection of TDS due to lower TDS certificates with different TANs issued by deductees. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) raised a demand for tax and interest, but the CIT(A) emphasized the duty of the assessee to inform suppliers about the new TAN and request revised certificates. The Tribunal held that the assessee, as the person responsible for TDS, complied with certificates issued u/s. 197 by deducting tax at source as per rates specified. The genuineness of the certificates was not in question. The procedure for obtaining lower rate deduction certificates under Rule 28(AA) was noted, emphasizing that certificates are valid for the named person responsible for deduction. The Tribunal, citing legal provisions and precedent, ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding no short deduction of tax occurred, and deleted the demand for tax and interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
