Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Section 201 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 192 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rishikesh Apartments Co-Operative ... on 14 June, 2001
M.C. Muthanna vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 January, 1989
The Hon'ble High Court affirmed the stand of the Revenue. In doing so, the Hon'ble High Court held that the interest payment received by the assessee would partake the character of salary having regard to the application of Rule 6(b) of Part A of the Fourth Schedule and Section 17(1)(vi) of the Act. In our view, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court does not aid the stand of the assessee inasmuch as the Hon'ble Court was dealing with the situation where the assessee therein was an employee of the employer-company and was a member 6f the approved provident fund, which was constituted by such company. In the case before us, we are dealing with a situation where the employees have since ceased to be in employment of the company, which has constituted the appellant provident fund. Therefore, in the situation before us, the employment of the assessee cannot be considered the source of the impugned amounts. Thus, on facts, the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras is not attracted to the facts of the instant case.
Section 80L in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
5. It was also argued that the AO, while passing orders under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act has exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as he has travelled beyond the approval granted by the CIT and held that since the assessee had failed to obtain declaration in writing, the interest paid was income in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, the appellant-trust was obliged to deduct tax at source under Section 194A of the Act. It was further submitted that there was no requirement as such of obtaining a request in writing as per Rule 5(3) of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Act as such a request in writing may not be in black and white on a paper, and could also be gathered from the conduct of the parties. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any case such violation is a technical violation and argued that having regard to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. , a liberal approach should be adopted. The learned Counsel submitted that such employees have not been assessed to tax in respect of this interest income as it has been considered exempt in the hands of such ex-employees of ONGC within the meaning of Section 10(12) of the Act. The action of the lower authorities in treating the appellant as an assessee in default for its alleged failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194A of the Act on the interest credited to the account of the retired employees is unjustified. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements :