TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds raised read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Rohtak has erred in law in deleting the demand of Rs. 389204/- created u/s. 201(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on a/c of short deduction of tax from the salary paid by the assessee deductor to its employees. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Rohtak has erred in law in allowing the deduction of interest on House Building Advance u/s. 24(1)(vi) and of principal amount of House Building Advance u/s. 80C of the I.T. Act, 1961 claimed by the employee of the assessee deductor in the absence of completion certificate of the houses for which HBA has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax (A) assessee interalia submitted that there is no law which mandate that as an employer the assessee was obliged to obtain completion certificate of the houses of the employees before allowing deduction u/s. 24(1)(vi) and u/s. 80C of the Act. Assessee further placed reliance upon Circular No. 11 of 2006 reported in 287 ITR 121 (St.) Furthermore, reliance was placed upon by the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. Semiconductor Complex Ltd. 292 ITR 636 (P&H). Considering the above, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that the demand raised u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) in this regard is deleted. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g actual performance of the journey. The Jurisdictional High Court concurred with the Tribunal that reimbursement of the expenses in this regard, after obtaining the information in the prescribed proforma was sufficient. Hence, we find that the ratio from the above case law also applies in these cases. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), therefore, we uphold the same. 7. Apropos ground no. 3 Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had not deducted TDS on average basis as per the provisions of the Act and CBDT circular no. 11/2006. In response to the show cause issued by the Assessing Officer as to why interest u/s. 201(1A) be not charged for disproportionat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I.T. vs. Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. 294 ITR 157 (Delhi). Considering the above, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) deleted the addition in this regard. 9. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that annual increment is generally known in advance, its quantum and time depends upon various factors like profits, contingencies etc. Section 192(3) provides for adjustments during the financial year for determining the TDS liability u/s. 192(1). Admittedly, the assessee company has deducted correct TDS u/s. 192(1) by making adjustments during the financial year. In this regard, Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court decision in....