2017 (5) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payments and consequential levy of interest u/s 201(1A) for Rs. 1,12,598/-. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee, being resident corporate assessee engaged in providing skincare services and holding TAN-MUMK-13061- G, was subjected to an order u/s 201(1) read with section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 26/03/2014. The Ld. AO, upon perusal of Tax Audit Report for impugned AY, noticed that the assessee made provision of Rent & Professional fees amounting to Rs. 14,41,875/- & Rs. 16,85,877/- respectively but failed to deduct TDS of Rs. 1,44,188/- and Rs. 1,68,588/- from the said payment which resulted into raising of impugned demand of Rs. 3,12,776/- against the assessee u/s 201(1) and consequential int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not crystallized and therefore, the question of TDS did not arise at all and the lower authorities have erred in treating the assessee as assessee-in-default. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncement for various contentions:- (i) DIT Vs Ericsson Communications Ltd [Delhi High Court ITA 106/2002 order dated 04/09/2015] (ii) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT [Karnataka High Court 67 Taxmann.com 259 02/02/2016] (iii) Alliance Media & Entertainment Ltd. [ITAT Mumbai 79 Taxmann.com 114 08/02/2017] (iv) IDBI Vs ITO [ITAT Mumbai 107 ITD 0045 31/07/2006] (iv) IBM India Private Limited Vs ITO TDS [ITAT Bangalore ITA No. 749 to 753/Bang/2012 order dated 14/05/2015] 4. Per contra Ld. DR placed ....