M/S DIAMOND CEMENT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that if the deductee has paid the tax on the income, the deductor is not liable for the shortfall in TDS, but remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the deductee's tax payments.
What were the facts?
The assessee deducted TDS at 2% on payments for sewage treatment plant operations, considering them contractual payments under Section 194C. The Revenue, however, treated these as professional/technical services under Section 194J, demanding the difference in tax and interest.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the correct rate of TDS applicable to payments for sewage treatment plant operations and the consequences of shortfall in TDS when the deductee has paid tax on the income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT576 citing293 ITR 226 · 2007 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH,
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA, HONBLE
Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of three Appeals by the Assessee directed against the common Order dated 27/10/2015 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short), dismissing the assessee’s appeals contesting its’ assessments under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Years (AYs.) 2010-11 to 2012-13 vide, again, a common order dated 07/6/2013. 2. The common issue in these appeals, for each of the three years under reference, is the correct rate at
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 194C
- Champion Omdev Construction Limited, Patna vs Asst Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1…ITA 72/PAT/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Champion Omdev Construction Limited, Patna vs ACIT Circle 1, PatnaITA 155/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Champion Omdev Construction Limited…ITA 547/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Raj Construction, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward TDS-2, VadodaraITA 327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Subramanian Aravind, Tuticorin vs Ward 1, TuticorinITA 297/CHNY/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026