TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax (Appeals) / ADDL / JCIT(A), Ranchi [for brevity, the "Ld. CIT(A)"] order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the ACT") for A.Ys 2016-17 to 2023-24, date of order 24/05/2025. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. ACIT (TDS(OSD), TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai (for brevity, the "Ld. AO") order passed u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act, date of order 26/08/2024. All the appeals have same nature of facts and have a common issue. So, all the appeals were taken together, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. ITA No.4558/Mum/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 is taken as lead case. ITA No. 4558/Mum/2025 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- "GROUNDS OF APPEAL Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer. Ground No. 5 The initiation of penalty proceedings under Sections 221(1) and 271C is unwarranted and be dropped, given the bona fide compliance by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on which the tax was deductible at source. But no tax was deducted at source during impugned financial year. The assessee during assessment proceeding conceded that no tax was deducted on year-end provisional expenses but the same was disallowed U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act during computing of tax. It is found that the assessee claimed in profit and loss account amount to Rs. 5,70,50,582/- where no tax was deducted at source U/s 194A, 194C, 194I & 194J of the Act. So, the assessee is treated as "assessee in default" U/s 201(1) & 201(1A) and tax & interest was determined total amount to Rs. 64,51,786/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved the assessee fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). The observation is as follows: - "12. We may record that it was argued by Shri. Chaithnaya that assessee had deducted tax at source in subsequent year in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B and remitted within the due date and the same was not refuted. 13. So far as the authority in Palam Gas Service (supra), it is relevant to note that the payees were identified in that case as recorded in para 5 of that judgment. In contradistinction, in the case on hand the payees were not identified. Therefore, the said authority does not lend any support in the contentions urged on behalf of the Revenue. 14. In view of the law laid down in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Volvo India (P.) Ltd. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the first day of the next financial year. Thus, showing that the amount payable to individual vendor has not crystallized. 11. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, the effective ground/s raised by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-examination by the assessee becomes infructuous. 12. In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed." 7. The Ld.DR argued and stated that the disallowance of 30% of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot restrict imposition of tax & interest u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act. So, accordingly, the Ld. DR stands in favour of the order of the revenue authorities.....