SH. JAGAN NATH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4759/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2016AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 194C, as amended to include individuals and HUFs, was effective from 01/06/2007. Since the assessment year was 2006-07, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 194C.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, made payments for labour charges without deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance with Section 194C.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 194C, requiring TDS for labour charges, was applicable to an individual assessee for the financial year 2006-07.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Devinder Pal, Adv

ORDER This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08 dated 2.6.2014. In this appeal the assessee disputes the applicability of provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and consequently disputes disallowance made under section 40a(ia) of the Act.

2.

After hearing rival contentions I find that the assessee is an individual, and the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has not deducted tax at source for labour charges paid of Rs.3,85,070/- under section 194C of the Act.

3.

The amendment to section 194C was brought w.e.f. 01/06/2007, wherein individuals and HUF’s of certain categories were brought within the ambit of Section 194C of the Act. Prior to that, individuals had no liability to deduct the tax at source. As the financial year in question is 2006- 2007, this section cannot be applied. Consequently the disallowance made under section 40a(ia) of the Act is bad in law. In my view the assessee has rightly relied on the decision of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Smt. Keya Seth, Circle-40, Kolkata vide and 843/Kol/2010 dated 11.03.2011. Thus I delete the disallowance made under section 40a(ia) of the Act and allow ground No. 4 of the assessee.

4.

The Ld. counsel for the assessee has not pressed all the other grounds. Hence we dismiss the same as not pressed.

5.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Pronounced in the Open Court on 29th June, 2016.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →