TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01 (1 A) and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A), being beyond jurisdiction on account of expiry of limitation, is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld AO as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in raising/confirming the demand of Rs. 23,16,799/-(including interest of Rs. 10,91,835/-) by denying the exemption u/s 10(5) in respect of reimbursement of Leave Travel concession involving foreign leg through circuitous route as long as the employees designated place is in India for his leave travel concession and he actually visits the place as designated. 3. That consequential to our Ground No.1,& 2 above, the learned AO and Ld CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the A.O. is barred by limitation of time. On perusal of the provisions of section 201(3), I find that the section has been amended w.e.f 01.10.2014 and from this date, order u/s 201 can be passed at any time before the expiry of seven years also from the end of financial year in which payment is made or credit is given. Since the payment for reimbursement of expenditure liable for TDS was made in F.Y. 2010-11, the seven years period expire on 31.03.2018. Thus, the order passed by the AO dated 05.03.2018 is within prescribed time limit. On the basis of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TATA Teleservices Vs Union of India (2016) 66 taxmann.com 157 (Guj), DCIT Vs Oracle India Pvt Ltd (2016) 72 taxmann.com 138 (SC) and Vod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imbursement of LFC was exempt u/s 10(5) of the Act. The arguments of the Ld. AR on this account are not acceptable because LFC for foreign component of travelling is not exempt u/s 10(5) and hence the tax was required to be deducted u/s 192 on the perquisite value of such LFC. Accordingly the action of AO on this account is confirmed raising a demand of Rs. 23,16,799/- u/s 201 (l)/201 (1A). However, in other two appeals of the appellant pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 and 2018-19, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of All India State Bank Officers Federation, Chennai and New Delhi (Petitioners) Vs SBI through its Chairman (Respondent), vide interim order dated 16.02.2015 contained in MP No. 2 of 2014 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubt that Section 201(3) of the Act provides that the assessment orders under sub section 1 of Section 201 against assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India can be passed before expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the payment is made. Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tata Teleservices vs. Union of India (supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for appellant has held that Section 201(3) as amended by Finance Act (no. 2) of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively and for convenience relevant para 15 is reproduced as below:- 15. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, to the facts of the case on hand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitting that under the un-amended sub section 3 of Section 201 there were two clauses and first clause provided two years limitation was in case where statement of TDS were filed and there was limitation of six years where no such statement is filed and has no foundation because in the present case admittedly the statement was filed by the assessee and the question was only with regard to the issue if TDS was required to be deducted in cases involving payment of LTC reimbursements to employees who had taken circuitous routes involving travel abroad to one or more domestic destinations. Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of Bench that the impugned order of assessment passed was without jurisdiction as the same was passed beyond the limi....