https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22172 The Tribunal found the employer-company in non-compliance with sections 192 and 200 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, leading to the application of section 201(1A) provisions. Interest was charged and increased following a Tribunal remand. The Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's action based on a precedent, rejecting the argument on tax deduction from net salary only. The court ruled that the employer must deduct tax on estimated income, including perquisites, and dismissed claims of the employer not being responsible for tax deduction. The court also clarified that the limitation period under section 231 does not bar the government from filing a suit for tax recovery. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the interest levy under section 201(1A) in favor of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 05 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:49:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22172 The Tribunal found the employer-company in non-compliance with sections 192 and 200 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, leading to the application of section 201(1A) provisions. Interest was charged and increased following a Tribunal remand. The Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's action based on a precedent, rejecting the argument on tax deduction from net salary only. The court ruled that the employer must deduct tax on estimated income, including perquisites, and dismissed claims of the employer not being responsible for tax deduction. The court also clarified that the limitation period under section 231 does not bar the government from filing a suit for tax recovery. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the interest levy under section 201(1A) in favor of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22172