Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 [in short ‘CIT(A)’], Mumbai and arises out of the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
The ground of appeal
reads as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, holding that the assessee has rightly deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act without L’oreal Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that the payment made under composite agreement for collection, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste, is liable for deduction of tax u/s 194J and not u/s 194C being rendering of a “technical service” for disposal of “hazardous waste”.
3. At the beginning of the hearing, the Ld. counsel of the assessee brought to our notice Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and submits that the tax effect is below the monetary limit of Rs.20,00,000/- and hence the appeal filed by the revenue be dismissed as withdrawn. The Ld. DR also refers to the above Circular issued by CBDT
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Assessing Officer (AO) has raised the following demand vide his order dated 18.03.2013 u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act: Demand as per defaults determined Rs.15,79,672/- u/s 201(1) Interest determined u/s 201(1A) Rs.5,52,885/- Total Demand payable Rs.21,32,557 Rounded off to Rs.21,32,560/- In the above Circular, it has been clarified that ‘tax effect’ shall be tax including applicable surcharge and cess. However, the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute.