Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar vs Assessee on 15 September, 2016 cites

Uco Bank vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 November, 2014

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:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Baldeep Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 March, 1992

The assessee submitted that the compensation money was deposited in the Court as trust money for payment to actual owners/payees and TDS was deducted within time prescribed when the court issued cheques to the actual owners. It was further submitted that when there is no payment to the payees/deductees and hence, there is no liability to deposit of TDS at that point of time. It was further submitted that the issue of one consolidated cheque to comply with the legal formalities cannot be construed as payment to the payee/land owner in any circumstances. However, the AO was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Baldeep Singh vs. Union of India, reported at 199 ITR 628, held that tax was to be deducted by the said officer when he deposited the money with the Court. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble P & H High Court, the AO held that the date of payment by the court was not material, as the Court was not a Person Responsible. The AO also relied upon the CBDT Circular No.526, dated 05.12.1988 for the proposition that the person responsible shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of cheques or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force. Keeping in view the above, the AO created demand of Rs.44832/-.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 14 - A Bhan - Full Document
1   2 Next