Aug 282021
 

Case 1: The assessee had been taking contracts in its name as well as in the names of its director and the Assessing Officer agreeing with the contentions of the assessee that as both the receipts were deposited in the assessee company’s accounts it was entitled to claim credit of TDS reflected in Form 26AS in the case of the director passed the Assessment Order for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 subject to verification that TDS had not been claimed by the director.

Against such directions, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Though the appeals were allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue of claiming and granting of TDS credit in the account of the director as appearing in Form 26AS in the hands of the assessee was not the subject matter of the appeal.

As the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, issued a notice to the assessee and by virtue of his order directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment by giving credit to the extent of TDS certificate issued in the name of the assessee only and withdraw the TDS certificate in the name of the director.

The Tribunal also held at para.17 of its order as under-

“There is no denial in the written submissions filed by the assessee before the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and before us that at the relevant time, the order was passed by the Assessing Officer, Rule 37BA was applicable. Further, the assessee has failed to mention that the case of the assessee would fall in any of the ingredients mentioned in Rule 37BA, as reproduced by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in para 2 of the impugned order. In view of the legal position, the opinion formed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue cannot be faulted”

Thus, the issue was answered against the assessee, and TDS reflecting in 26AS of the director was not given to the assessee company.

Case 2: The facts of the case which arose before the Madras High Court in Madura Coats Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 25 Taxman 200 (Mad) were the assessee company was formed by the amalgamation of three companies. The amalgamation took place on January 1, 1975, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1974. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, two of the three companies which held shares in the third company were entitled to dividend income on the said shares, and on the said dividend income, the tax was deducted at source. This dividend was declared at the annual general meeting of the company held on December 27, 1974.

The assessee’s claim before the Assessing Officer that the dividend income could not be taken as its income but the tax deducted at source from the said dividend should be given credit to in its assessment was rejected by the Assessing Officer who held that the dividend was the income of the amalgamated company as per the terms of the amalgamation.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the dividend income from the total income of the assessee and as regards the tax deducted at source, he held that the proper person should approach the concerned authority for a refund of the tax wrongly deducted.

The Tribunal held that the tax deducted at source could not be given credit to the assessee in whose hands the dividend income had not been taxed.

The High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the finding of the Tribunal that the dividend income could not be treated as the income of the amalgamated company viz., the assessee, automatically resulted in the tax deducted at source from the said gross dividend not being part of the assessee’s income. The tax deducted at source could be given credit only in the case of the company in whose hands the income was to be assessed and as per section 198 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the tax deducted at source would be the income received by the erstwhile companies which owned the shares in respect of which the dividend was declared. Accordingly, credit for the tax deducted at the source from the said dividend could not be given to the assessee.

Case 3: The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Tanjore Permanent Bank Ltd. [1987] 30 Taxman 265 (Mad.) held that:

“It is well settled that a tax credit can be given only in cases where the tax is paid on the income in respect of which tax has been deducted at source and which is offered for assessment.”

The assessee-bank, in this case, advanced money to its constituents, bought bonds of Electricity Board for them but in its own name, kept them in its own custody but the real and beneficial owners were the said constituents and the assessee-bank claimed credit for tax deducted at source on interest income of the said bonds through interest income from the said bonds had not been included by the assessee in its return. The Assessing Officer allowed credit for the said tax deducted at source but subsequently withdrew it by passing an order under section 154 of the Act. The High Court, reversing the order passed by the Tribunal, held that giving credit of tax deducted at source on the said interest income which had not been included in assessee’s total income amounted to a mistake apparent from record amenable to rectification under section 154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer.

Aug 252021
 

Facts:

  • A TDS survey was conducted by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax at the premises of the assessee-company. The Assessing Officer passed an order under section 201 holding that it failed to deduct the TDS in respect of provisions of expenditures amounting to INR 15,07,25,637/- made under several heads of income. The details of provisions on which TDS have not been deducted is given below:
Head of the provision Amount of provision made Date of provision Amount of TDS demand u/s 201(1) Delay in months Interest amount Demand u/s 201(1A)
Misc. Expenses – conference expenses 4,00,00,000 31.03.10 40,00,000 @ 10% 37 14,80,000
Business development initiative (reimbursement to dealers) 1,25,61,825 31.03.10 2,51,236 @ 2% 37 92,957
Business development conference 5,00,00,000 31.03.10 50,00,000 @ 10% 37 18,50,000
Product publicity expenses outside India 4,58,14,000 31.03.10 9,16,280 @ 2% 37 3,39,024
Commission to selling agents – domestic 19,64,000 31.03.10 1,96,400 @ 10% 37 72,668
Commission to selling agents – clearing & forwarding 3,85,812 31.03.10 38,581 @ 10% 37 14,275
Total 15,07,25,637   1,04,02,497   38,48,924
  • On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer.

 

  • In the instant appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that next year when the actual expenditure was incurred, the provision was reversed and the deduction was claimed on the basis of actual expenditure incurred. When such expenditure was actually incurred, TDS was made as per law.

 

  • On the other hand, the revenue took the stand that provision can be made only when the liability is an ascertained liability. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim that the payee in respect of whom the liability is created is unidentifiable.

 

  • He further stated that as per provision of section 194C(2), the tax is to be deducted at source where any sum is credited to any account whether called suspense account or by any other name in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income.

 

Analysis of facts:

The question here is – whether the assessee can be said to be in default for not deducting the TDS in respect of a provision made at the year-end?

Liability to deduct TDS: Explanation 2 of sec. 194C, which exists even now, that the said TDS liability would arise even if the amount is credited to any account whether called suspense account or called by any other name.

Thus, the position of TDS deduction in the above case can be summarized as below:

Whether the payee is identifiable? The amount payable to the payee is ascertainable? Liability to deduct TDS on the year-end provision
Yes + Yes = Yes
No + Yes = No
No + No = No
Yes + No = No

Conclusion:

The ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi – Trib.) held that where assessee-company could not ascertain the identity of payees while making provision for expenditure under several heads of income at the year-end, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on such provision.

Aug 222021
 

Facts of the case:

  • The original assessee Shri S. P. Patel (hereinafter referred to as “the assessee”) and his brother were partners in a firm known as M/s. Patel Brothers having 50 percent, share each in the profit and loss of the firm.

 

  • The assessee held several equity shares of limited companies from which dividend income was received.

 

  • Up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee was given the credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) from the dividend income.

 

  • However, for the assessment years in question, namely, the assessment year 1972-73 and 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer declined to give credit of TDS from the dividend income to the assessee on the ground that the shares belonged to the firm and accordingly held that that the firm is entitled to the credit of the TDS amount.

 

Analysis of facts:

The shares from which dividend income was earned stood in the name of the assessee, TDS certificates issued by the company stood in the name of the assessee and moreover, admittedly the dividend income has also been assessed in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the first proviso to section 199 comes into operation only if the dividend income is to be taxed in the hands of a person other than the shareholder.

The dividend income is admittedly taxed in the hands of the assessee/shareholder. Once the dividend income is assessed in the hands of the assessee/shareholder, the proviso to section 199 of the Act would have no application and consequently denying the credit of TDS to the assessee/shareholder does not arise at all.

The Bombay High Court in the case of Yezdi Hirji Malegam v. CIT [2008] 299 ITR 329 (Bombay) held that “The first proviso to section 199 of the Act, read with rule 30A, inter alia, provides for giving credit for TDS to the firm where dividend income is to be taxed in hands of firm and not to partner; once dividend income is assessed in hands of shareholder-partner, proviso to section 199 would have no application and consequently the question of denying credit of TDS to partner does not arise at all.”

The assessment years involved in this case were 1972-73 and 1976-77 and the law, as it stood then, provided for allocation of firm’s income together with tax to partners’ income. In other words, the share income of a partner was taxed twice in the relevant assessment years with proportionate credit of the firm’s tax in the hands of a partner.

To put it differently each section in the Income-tax Act would have application in so far as the purpose for which it has been enacted is concerned except in cases wherein it has been provided otherwise enlarging the scope of that section.

Conclusion:

Therefore, in the present case, admittedly the dividend income was taxed in the hands of the assessee/shareholder. And hence, denial of credit of TDS based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75, cannot be sustained.

Aug 192021
 

Facts of the case:

The facts obtaining in the case decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2009] 181 Taxman 209 (P&H) were that the assessee, a financial corporation, had an agreement with the State of Punjab and in terms of the aforesaid agreement, amounts deposited by State of Punjab with assessee-financial corporation were invested by the assessee and on account of said common investment, dividend income was earned, out of which percentage of the income of the assessee was only 31.50 and percentage of that of State of Punjab was 68.50.

Analysis of facts:

Second proviso to section 199:

in any other case, where the dividend on any share is assessable as the income of a person other than the shareholder, the payment shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of, and the credit shall be given to, such other person in such circumstances as may be prescribed :

Provided further that where any property, deposit, security, unit, or share is owned jointly by two or more persons not constituting a partnership, the payment shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of, and credit shall be given to, each such person in the same proportion in which rent, interest on deposit or on security or income in respect of unit or dividend on share is assessable as his income.

 

Thus, the credit for tax deduction at source is to be assigned to, each of such persons deriving income from the common investment (i.e., in the same proportion in which they share the income).

 

In this context, it would be pertinent to mention that when the liability of the respondent-assessee on the dividend income was sought to be assessed in the present assessment, out of total dividend income of Rs. 89,915, the respondent claimed a deduction of Rs. 61,521 (68.50% of Rs 89,915/-) by asserting that the said income belonged to the Punjab Government.

 

In other words, out of the total dividend income of Rs. 89,915 the income of the respondent-assessee was only Rs. 28,394 (31.50% of Rs 89,915/-) and that of the State of Punjab Rs. 61,521. There can, therefore, be no doubt, that the credit for tax deduction at source should be available to the Punjab Financial Corporation Limited as also the State of Punjab in the same proportion as their income referred to hereinabove.

The High Court held that “credit for tax deduction at source is to be assigned to each of such persons deriving income from common investment, i.e., in the same proportion in which they share income” and “therefore, the assessee would be entitled to claim the credit on account of tax deduction at source in the same proportion as it shared income from dividend with the State of Punjab.”

Conclusion:

As in the arrangement between the State of Punjab and the Punjab Financial Corporation Limited, the income is shared between the State of Punjab and the Punjab Financial Corporation Limited in the ratio of 2:1 and hence whatever income is derived on account of equity dividend, by the aforesaid two sharing parties, is also liable to deduction of tax at source. The afore-stated benefit of deduction on account of tax deducted at source, as discussed above, is liable to be in the same ratio in which the parties share the income.

Aug 132021
 

Facts:

The assessee was following the cash system of accounting. She was holding cumulative term deposits in a bank entitling her for interest, which was periodically credited by the bank in the deposit account of the assessee.

  • During the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01, the bank deducted tax at source on the interest credited in the deposit account of the assessee and issued TDS certificates to her.

 

  • Though the assessee in the returns of income filed for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01 did not disclose the interest income from these deposits as her income, she claimed credit of tax based on TDS certificates issued by the bank.

 

  • The Assessing Officer declined to give credit for the tax deducted at source by the bank for the reason that interest income on which deduction of tax was made by the bank was not returned by the assessee in the relevant assessment years.

 

  • However, the Assessing Officer accepting the contention of the assessee that she was following the cash system of accounting did not assess any interest income in the assessment years concerned.

 

Analysis of facts:

From a reading of the provisions of section 199, as they stood during the relevant assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01, it is clear that the assessee is entitled to a credit of tax paid in the assessment year in which the income is assessed. In other words, the assessee should claim credit of tax based on the TDS certificate in the year in which the assessee returns the income from which deduction is made for the purpose of assessment. Even after the amendment of the section through the introduction of sub-section (3) in section 199, the Central Board was authorized to make rules for giving credit for tax deducted at source. As required under that section, rule 37BA was inserted in the Rules by the IT (Sixth Amdt.) Rules, 2009, with effect from 1-4-2009.

Thus, the assessee can retain the TDS certificates and claim credit in the assessment year in which the assessee returns the income on which deduction of tax is made for assessment.

Now the question arises – Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in refusing to give credit for tax deducted at source based on TDS certificates issued by the bank for the reason that income is not returned for assessment by the assessee in the assessment years following the years in which tax is deducted and paid by the bank?

Section 199 makes it clear that the assessee is entitled to a credit of tax based on the TDS certificate only in the assessment year in which income from which tax is deducted is assessed. Therefore, when the statute makes it mandatory that credit of tax based on TDS certificate is available only in the assessment year in which the income from which tax deducted at source is assessed, the Tribunal cannot overrule the statutory provisions.

Conclusion:

Thus, in such cases assessee has two methods of claiming credit of TDS in return for income as given below:

Method 1 –  Going by the practical difficulty to retain TDS certificates for several years until the interest is returned for assessment on the cash basis, prudent assessees should return income on which tax is deducted and remitted by the payer in the assessment year following the year in which such income is subject to deduction of tax and remittance by the payer.

Method 2 – The assessee who does not follow method 1 supra,  should follow section 199 and rule 37BA, retain the TDS certificates, and claim credit in the assessment year in which such income is returned for assessment.

In other words, the assessee should claim credit of tax based on the TDS certificate in the year in which the assessee returns the income from which deduction is made for the purpose of assessment. Even after the amendment of the section through the introduction of sub-section (3) in section 199, the Central Board was authorized to make rules for giving credit for tax deducted at source.

 

 

Aug 102021
 

Facts:

  • The assessee was a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of PSCC/RCC and MS pipes, cement slabs and also executed civil contracts.

 

  • Subsequently, by virtue of the conversion, all the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile partnership firm became assets and liabilities of the company.

 

  • The assessee along with three others entered into a joint venture agreement for the purposes of preparing and submitting pre-qualification/post-qualification tender to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage Board.

 

  • As per the terms of the agreement, each of the parties to the joint venture was concerned with its share of work/contract and the profit or loss arising therefrom.

 

  • With respect to the contract work receipts, TDS was done and the assessee claimed credit of the tax mentioned in the said TDS certificates.

 

  • The Assessing Officer refused to give credit on the ground that some of the TDS certificates belonged to the joint venture and some other TDS certificates were in the name of Directors but said certificates did not relate to the assessee firm/company.

 

  • The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim holding that where the joint venture had not filed the return of income and claimed credit for TDS certificates, then the said credit had to be entertained in the assessee’s hands.

 

Analysis of facts:

By the Income Tax (8th amendment) Rules, 2011, the CBDT amended Rule 37 BA, and in sub-rule (2), for clause (i), the following clause was substituted:

“(i) Where under any provisions of the Act, the whole or any part of the income on which tax has been deducted at source is assessable in the hands of a person other than the deductee, credit for the whole or any part of the tax deducted at source, as the case may be, shall be given to the other person and not to the deductee”

This amendment has done away with the specified four clauses in the pre-amended Rule 37BA which restricted the benefit of the rule only in four specified situations. It has thus widened the scope of rule 37 BA thereby enabling the credit of taxes to the actual payee in whose hands the income is assessable and not restricting this benefit only to the specified four situations.

Thus, the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director of the assessee company. They have considered the terms of the agreement dated 12-03-2003 among the parties to the joint venture and held that credit for TDS certificates cannot be denied to the assessee while assessing the contract receipts mentioned in the said certificates as income of the assessee. The income shown in the TDS certificates has either to be taxed in the hands of the joint venture or in the hands of the individual co-joint venturer. As the joint venture has not filed a return of income and claimed credit for TDS certificates and the TDS certificates have not been doubted, credit has to be granted to the TDS mentioned therein for the assessee.

The Revenue cannot be allowed to retain tax deducted at the source without the credit is available to anybody. If the credit of tax is not allowed to the assessee, and the joint venture has not filed a return of income, then credit of the TDS cannot be taken by anybody. This is not the spirit and intention of the law.

Aug 072021
 

Facts of the case

The assessee company entered into a foreign technical collaboration for Basic Engineering and Training (BEAT) Agreement with D, a foreign company, to set up a gas-based Sponge Iron Plant in India. In terms of the agreement, D was to deliver the designs, drawings, and data besides training a certain number of employees of the petitioner company outside India. In lieu of the services, it was agreed that in addition to the consideration, all tax liabilities of D, if any, arising in India shall be borne by the petitioner company.

The assessee- company sought no objection certificate from income tax authorities to remit the consideration payable to D without deducting TDS but the same was denied.

Subsequently, the assessee- company paid TDS under protest as withholding tax which was over and above the agreed consideration payable to D.

Later on, D filed its nil return of income in India for the same period but the Assessing Officer held that D had taxable income in India and accordingly, the withholding tax paid by the assessee- company was adjusted towards D’s tax liability.

Against such order, a writ petition was filed together by the assessee- company and D wherein on 5th May 2010, the Bombay High Court rendered its judgment and held that such income was not taxable in India and further the income tax authorities were directed to pass fresh orders excluding the income received by D.

Subsequent to this order, the assessee-company requested the income tax authorities that it was entitled to refund of TDS deposited on behalf of D but the department refuted its claim by holding that since TDS was deposited on behalf of D and D had claimed the credit of such TDS deposited in its return of income, petitioner company was not entitled to such refund.

Analysis of facts:

The tax was deducted at source at the relevant time on behalf of D in accordance with Section 199 of the Act, credit can only be given to Davy and the benefit of the order of this Court rendered on 5 May 2010 can only be given to D who had filed its return of income for the A.Y.1990-91 and 1991-92.

It is, therefore, submitted that the assessee cannot claim a refund of tax deducted at the source which was deposited by the Petitioner on behalf of D, as there is no provision in the Act for the same.

It is submitted that the Assessee has no locus standi to claim a refund on behalf of D.

The order passed by the High Court & Conclusion

As regards the question of whether the petitioner is entitled to get such a refund, the Court is not expressing any opinion at this stage. However, the Court directs that if any amount deducted at source for the Assessment’s years 1990-91 and 1991-92 is required to be refunded to D pursuant to the judgment dated 5th May 2010 in Writ Petition of this Court, the respondents shall deposit the said amount along with interest in accordance with the law in this Court.

Aug 042021
 

Facts:

  1. The assessee derived income from the business of erection, commissioning, and installation of towers on a contract basis.
  2. The Assessing Officer noticed that total receipts declared by the assessee were less than the amount on which TDS credit was claimed. [Rs. 6,20,99,368/- as opposed to Rs. 19,08,20,903/- & the TDS claimed was Rs. 1,20,73,097/-]
  3. The assessee explained that discrepancy arose because the vendor had billed the assessee’s sister company REPL for the work but had mistakenly mentioned the assessee’s PAN in the TDS certificate and, thus, inadvertently crediting assessee’s TDS account in the 26AS statement, which was PAN-based.
  4. The assessee had claimed credit of all TDS certificates, including those related to REPL stating that benefit of the TDS certificates mistakenly issued in the assessee’s PAN name had not been availed by REPL. The total TDS claim made by the assessee was Rs. 1,20,73,097/- against a total of Rs. 19,08,20,903/- received.
  5. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s claim relying on section 199 and held that the TDS credit should be allowed to the person from whose income the deduction was made.
  6. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim on the ground that since the assessee had already paid the due taxes in REPL, it would be a travesty of justice to not allow the benefit of TDS to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis of facts:

199. Credit for tax deducted.

(1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of the property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be.

(2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made.

(3) The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this Chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than those referred to in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given.”

Revenue cannot be allowed to retain tax without credit being allowed to anybody: Revenue cannot be allowed to retain tax deducted at the source without the credit is available to anybody. If the credit of tax is not allowed to the assessee, and the joint venture (sister concern in the above case) has not filed a return of income, then credit of the TDS cannot be taken by anybody. This is not the spirit and intention of the law. Also, the procedure is the handmaid of justice, and it cannot be used to hamper the cause of justice.

Applicability of rule 37A: At this stage, it is also relevant to note the provisions of Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which envisions grant of TDS credit to entities other than the deductee (herein, M/s REPL). We must clarify that we are not oblivious of the fact that Rule 37BA is not directly applicable in the facts of this case. The reliance placed on Rule 37BA is merely to demonstrate that in not all circumstances is TDS credit given to the deductee.

Conclusion:

When can the assessee claim credit of TDS even in the case of mistake of credit of TDS to a wrongly but related person/account?

Where due to an inadvertent mistake of the vendor, the TDS relating to the assessee’s sister concern was credited to the assessee’s TDS account, the assessee could claim credit of such TDS, provided its sister concern had not availed the benefit of such TDS certificates.

A few extracts from this decision would probably indicate that even after an amendment to rule 37BA, credit for TDS can be claimed by the person who is not liable to pay tax on the receipt covered by that TDS.

  1. TDS benefit may be taken even in cases where corresponding income is not offered for tax

“The Assessing Officer denied credit of TDS in the hands of the assessee on the ground that corresponding income by way of compensation has not been offered to tax. – It is worth noting here that once TDS certificates are in the name of the assessee and credit for such TDS is appeared in the name of the assessee in the AIR database and also the fact that the particular income is not taxable either in the hands of the assessee or in the hands of the HUF credit for TDS cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the corresponding income has not been offered to tax.

There is merit in the arguments for the reason that when a particular income is exempt from tax in view of specific provisions provided under section 10(37) and also the fact that the HUFs have declared the compensation received on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land in their return of income and claimed exemption under section 10(37) there is no reason for the Assessing Officer to deny credit for TDS merely on the ground that no income has been offered to tax in the hands of the assessee. The compensation received on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is exempt from tax under section 10(37).

It is further noticed that HUFs have declared the said compensation in the return of income. It is also undisputed that the HUFs have not claimed credit for TDS in their return of income.

Therefore, when the facts are clear in respect of exemption of particular receipt in the hands of the assessee as well as HUFs, the question of offering such income for tax in the hands of the assessee does not arise.

  1. Where credit of TDS is appearing in AIR database and assessee have furnished TDS certificate

When the credit for such TDS is appearing in the name of the assessee in the AIR database and the assessee has furnished the necessary TDS certificate in his name, the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the claim of credit for TDS by citing the provisions of section 199 read with rule 37BA.

Therefore, the revenue’s contention that the assessee instead of claiming the entire TDS amount ought to have sought a correction of the vendor’s mistake would unnecessarily have prolonged the entire process of seeking a refund based on TDS credit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in denying credit of TDS to the assessee.

Aug 012021
 

Due dates for the Month of August 2021
7th
INCOME TAX
– TDS Payment for July.
10th
GST
– Return of authorities deducting tax at source – GSTR 7 for July.
– Details of supplies effected through e-commerce operator and the amount of tax collected – GSTR 8 for July.
11th
GST
– Details of outward supplies of taxable goods and/or services effected – GSTR 1 for July.
13th
GST
– Return for Input Service Distributor – GSTR 6 for July.
15th
Providend Fund
– PF Payment for July.
ESIC
– ESIC Payment for July.
20th
GST
– Monthly return on the basis of finalization of details of outward supplies and inward supplies along with the payment of the amount of tax – GSTR 3B for July.
– Return for Non-Resident foreign taxable person – GSTR 5 for July.
22nd
GST
– GSTR 3B for July if turnover below Rs. 5 Crore for Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Telangana. Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Dadra & Nagar Haveli.
24th
GST
– GSTR 3B for July if turnover below Rs. 5 Crore for the Rest of India.
28th
GST
– Details of Inward Supplies to be furnished by a person having UIN and claiming refund – GSR 11 for July
.
31st
PROF. TAX
– Monthly Return for Tax Liability of Rs. 100,000 & above.
Sensys Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
HO: 904, 905 & 906, Corporate Annexe, Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400 063.
Tel.: 022-6820 6100| Call: 09769468105 / 09867307971
Email: sales@sensysindia.com | Website: http://www.sensysindia.com
Branches: Delhi & NCR | Pune | Bangalore | Hyderabad | Ahmedabad | Chennai | Kolkata
Visit our BLOG for the latest news and updates related to XBRL, Income Tax, HR & Payroll, PF / ESIC / TDS / PT, etc. Click here to visit Sensys BLOG