THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/414/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01038626202206 February 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the substantial questions of law were covered by a previous decision in favor of the assessee. The court affirmed the ITAT's decision that the assessee was not liable for TDS in this scenario.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that held the assessee was not an "assessee in default" for not deducting TDS on amounts credited to a provision for expenditure account. The assessee argued that the entries were subsequently reversed.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS is deductible when an amount is credited to a provision for expenditure account, even if subsequently reversed. Whether the assessee can be treated as an "assessee in default" under these circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194C,Section 194J,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

ITA No. 414 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 414 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, HMT BHAVAN BANGALORE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), LTU BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD DIVYASHREE GARDENS NO.12/1,12/2A AND 13/1A CHALLGHATTA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE-560 071 PAN-AABCD1741M …RESPONDENT

(BY MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.03.2022 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2035/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 414 of 2022

HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25.03.2022 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEES CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.2035/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 (ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned advocate accepts notice for the respondent.

2.

This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 25.03.2022 in ITA No.2035/Bang/2016 passed by the ITAT1, "B" Bench, Bangalore, has been filed to consider the following questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in not treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS from amount credited to provision for expenditure account on the ground that the entries are subsequently reversed though assessee was required to deduct TDS once amount is credited irrespective of future obligations?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that assessee cannot be

1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 3 -

ITA No. 414 of 2022

treated as “assessee in default” ignoring that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS under section 194C & 194J (1) of the act when it credited the amount to provision for expenditure account for domestic payment?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by Tribunal can be said as perverse in nature in holding that assessee cannot be held as ‘assessee in default’ under section 201 of the Act merely because the said amount was voluntarily disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act even though the interpretation in the Tribunal’s judgment rendered provisions under section 194C(2) and Explanation (C) to Section 194J otiose?”

3.

Heard Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee.

4.

At the outset, Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar submits that questions of law raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court in M/s Subex Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,2 holding the questions of law in assessee’s favour.

2 ITA No.787/2017 DD 22.12.2022

- 4 -

ITA No. 414 of 2022

5.

The said submission is not disputed by Shri Sanmathi, in his usual fairness.

6.

In view of the above, the following: ORDER

(i) Appeal is dismissed; (ii) The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar is permitted to file vakalath for the respondent in four weeks. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →