TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)Prayagraj 26/12/2023 4. ITA NO. 421/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)Prayagraj 26/12/2023 5. ITA NO. 493/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)Prayagraj 20/12/2023 6. ITA NO. 622/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 7. ITA NO. 623/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 8. ITA NO. 624/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 9. ITA NO. 625/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 10. ITA NO. 626/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 11. ITA NO. 643/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 12. ITA NO. 653/Chd/2024 State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that all the above appeals are barred by limitation. 3. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in all the above appeals, we condone the delay for which sufficient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 10(5) as the journeys involved foreign travel, and thus, TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices issued on 26.12.2020, 17.08.2022, and 01.09.2022, and upheld the AO's order, relying on decisions of the Karnataka High Court and various ITAT benches. 7. At the outset the Ld.AR had drawn our attention to the additional ground raised by the assessee which is reproduced herein above. 7.1 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in the present case the inspection / survey was happened in the premise's of the assessee on 12/01/2018 and some violation was found and noticed by the officers of the Revenue and thereafter, the proceedings under section 201 were initiated for non-deduction of tax by the person responsible. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the action carried out by the officer was beyond the period of time as provided under section 201(3) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etrospective effect from 1-4-2010, i.e., from AY 2010-11 onwards. However, the time limit for deeming a person to be an assessee-in-default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, in a case where a statement of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 of the Act was filed by the deductor remained unchanged i.e. 2 years as was earlier provided on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1-4-2010. We find that the aforesaid time limit for deeming a person to be an assessee-in- default within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act, had thereafter further been extended vide the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1-10-2014 to a period of 7 years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given. 10. Before proceeding further it would be important to examine based on facts whether the time limit for deeming the assessee as an assessee-in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act is regulated by the time period as mentioned in clause (i) of section 201(1) as claimed by the assessee, or the extended time period of 6 years as per clause (ii) of section 201(1) as was prevalent prior to the Finance Act, 2014, i.e. prior to 1-10-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.] 14. In the present case, the assessee had filed the challans showing the furnishing of statement of TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee's ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised the by the assessee are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. ACIT(supra) and therefore they are not required to be adjudicated separately being against the assessee. 16. With respect to the additional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Besides, the attendant cost in foreign travel would also make the expenditure under this scheme much higher. The Commission is, therefore, not inclined to concede the demand to allow foreign travel under LTC." This is also an objection of the Revenue which has been raised in its counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1-Assistant Commission of Income-tax wherein the Revenue has asserted that the provision for LTC was introduced to motivate employees and encourage its employees towards tourism in India and it is for this reason that reimbursement of LTC was exempted. There was no intention of legislature to allow the employees to travel abroad in the garb of LTC available by virtue of Section 10(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has a valid objection (apart from other objections which are clearly violative of the Statute), that the intention and purpose of the scheme is also violated in the garb of tour within India, foreign travel is being availed. 16. The aforementioned order passed by the CIT(A) has rightly held that the obligation of deducting tax is distinct from payment of tax. The appellant cannot claim ignorance about the travel plans of its employ....