Parmanand Tiwari vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Rule 37BA (credit for TDS) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2009 to mitigate hardship to taxpayers has to be treated as being retrospective in nature
The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA of the Rules mitigates the hardship faced by assessee for claiming credit of TDS whereby deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports the tax deduction in the name of other person in the information relating to deduction of tax as referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 37BA of the Rules. In such provisions of law, the assessee should have been allowed credit for TDS in the given set of facts and circumstances of the case. The only issue is that the amended provision is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and the relevant assessment year involved is 2008-09. Whether the amended Rule as amended by Amendment Rules, 2009 is a beneficial provision mitigating the hardship of the assessee and in turn the same can be declared as retrospective and will apply to all pending matters. Similar issue was dealt by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC), wherein it has been held that "the provisions of the first proviso, which has newly been inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1st April, 1998, to section 43B is remedial in nature, designed to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the assessee and which made the provision unworkable or unjust in a specific situation, and is of clarificatory nature and, therefore, has to be treated as retrospective with effect from 1st April, 1984, the date on which section 43B has newly been inserted by the Finance Act, 1983." Similarly, here also the Rule was inserted by the Amendment Rules, 2009 to remove the hardship faced by assessees and to give true meaning to the provision of section 199 of the Act
Times Guaranty Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 271(1)(c): Wrong claim for depreciation by showing a finance or loan transaction as a lease transaction attracts penalty
The contention that whether a transaction is a lease transaction or a finance transaction is a debatable legal
issue, we are not inclined to accept this argument also. Whether a transaction is a lease transaction or a loan transaction, in our view, is a factual issue which is to be decided after appreciation of the relevant facts. If the facts show that the assessee has put a wrong claim of depreciation by showing a finance or loan transaction as a lease transaction, certainly the claim is to be disallowed. However, in cases, where from the facts and evidences on the file it can be shown that the transaction was real or genuine, the relief of claim of depreciation is to be allowed. In the case in hand, from the facts, it was clearly established that the assessee had put a wrongful claim of depreciation and thereby had furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of concealment of real income, hence, the penalty proceedings were correctly initiated by the AO.
Income-tax Department To Take Anti-Corruption Pledge
The Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance) has issued a letter dated 14.10.2014 stating that the department shall be observing the theme of "Combating Corruption — Technology as an enabler". It is stated that the Observance of the Vigilance Awareness Week every year is a step towards promoting integrity whereby all the stake holders arc enthused to fight the malaise of corruption. In line with the CVC's suggestion, the Chief Commissioners have been advised to consider undertaking various activities during the Vigilance Awareness Week such as display of banners, posters, organizing debates, lectures, etc and also to take a "pledge" that corruption will be avoided.
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
No comments:
Post a Comment