Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Uco Bank vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 November, 2014

Dishnet Wireless Limited, Chennai vs Assessee on 20 July, 2015

11. Similarly, the Ld. Sr. counsel submitted that in respect of year-end provisions, the assessee could not identify the payee and could not ascertain the sum payable. Therefore, the assessee is not expected to deduct tax at the time of making provision. The Ld. Sr. counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in UCO Bank v. Union of India & Others in WP(C) 3563/2012 and submitted that in the case before the Delhi High Court, certain deposits were made with a bank in the name of Registrar General of High Court, in terms of directions issued by the High Court. The issue arose before the Delhi High Court was whether the banks are required to deduct tax at source and issue certificates in the name of Registrar General. The Delhi High Court found that no TDS is required to be deducted as the ultimate beneficiary or payee is not identifiable. The Ld. Sr. counsel filed a copy of the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar vs Assessee on 15 September, 2016

10. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the material available on record. We find that interest paid under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is necessarily a part of compensation whereas interest under section 34 for delay in making payment is taxable as interest. In the present case, it is not clear as to whether interest under dispute is under section 28 or under section 34. If the interest is under section 28 then necessarily the interest portion is part of compensation and whereas if interest has been paid u/s 34, the amount is necessarily the interest which required tax deduction at source. There, 7 ITA No. 93/Asr/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 the first limb of argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee cannot be adjudicated in view of the fact that the nature of interest is not apparent from the material on record. However, the alternative argument of the assessee that the deposit of compensation with the Court is neither payment to beneficiary nor credit to the account of the beneficiary, therefore, was not liable to tax deduction at source can be adjudicated. We find it is a fact that the amount of compensation was deposited with the Court and the actual names of the payees and their PAN were not available with the Person Responsible and moreover, the deposit of compensation with the court cannot be said to be payment to the beneficiary. The ld. counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In this case at the directions of the Court fixed deposits were made in the name of the Registrar General of Court and bank issued fixed deposits receipt. The bank did not deduct tax at source on the interest accrued on these fixed deposits and therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the bank for non-deduction of tax. The Bank ultimately filed writ petition with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, as the Registrar General of Court was not a payee under section 194A of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the Registrar General of Court was neither the recipient of the amount credited to the account nor was recipient of 8 ITA No. 93/Asr/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 interest accruing thereon. Therefore, it was held that the Registrar General cannot be considered as a payee for the purposes of section 194A of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Court, as contained in paras 19 to 23 are reproduced as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1