Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Dcit, Central Circle - 2(4), Kolkata , ... vs M/S. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency ... on 15 January, 2020

Golden Arrow Travels Private Limited, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong on 17 June, 2020

7. Coming to ground no. 5 which is delayed payment of business disallowance of Rs.7,237/-, which according to assessee is amount of interest on late payment of TDS. We note that this issue is no longer res integra. We note that similar issue has come before this Tribunal in DCIT vs Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd in ITA No. 822/Kol/18 AY 2013-14, order dt. 15-1-20. Relevant portion is reproduced herein below:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Iris Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl.Cit, Special Range- 4, New Delhi on 21 June, 2021

Similar decisions were given by the Kolkata Bench in the cases of DCIT vs. Rungta Mines Ltd. in ITA No.1531/Kol/2017 vide order dated 05.10.2018, DCIT vs. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd. in ITA No.1533/Kol/2017 vide order dated 10.10.2018, DCIT vs. V2 Retail Ltd. in ITA No.1794/Kol/2018 vide order date 28.06.2019 and DCIT vs. Ma Annapurna Transport in ITA No.822/Kol/2018 vide order dated 15.01.2020. In all these cases the Kolkata Bench allowed the interest paid on late payment of TDS as a deduction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pooja Crafted Homes Private Limited, ... vs Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad on 25 March, 2024

17. Further, if we agree with the contention of the assessee that the interest should be allowed as allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act, then it will lead to unintentional consequences and unscrupulous persons will take the benefit of this provision and unnecessarily withhold the taxes and utilize the same for their own purposes and thereafter, claim the deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. The same cannot be countenanced as against the spirt of the Act, as the Act contemplates that making of the payment within the time, and the consequences are provided under Sections 220 and 221 of the Act, which not only require the payment of interest but also, in case of failure to make or pay the amount, provide for declaring such a person as an assessee in default. In view of the above said reasoning, we do not find any reason to allow the ground of the assessee. Though, the assessee had relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal, however none of the case laws are applicable to the facts of the case. Further, the judgment in the case of M/s. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd. (supra) are dealt with the issue of TDS receivable which has been taxed in the assessment year. However, the issue in the present ground is that the interest paid on delayed deposit of TDS is an allowable expenditure or not. The said two case laws are also not applicable to the facts of the present ground along with other case laws relied upon by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1