ITO (TDS) 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

(i) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to compute interest for delay in deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, from the due date, without appreciating the that as per clause(ii) to section 201(1A) of the IT Act, interest for delay should be calculated from the date on which such tax was deducted to the date on which the tax is actually paid.

(ii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to levy interest for two months instead of three months for delay in deposit of tax deducted at source, without appreciating the legal provisions of clause(ii) of section 201(1A), which clearly states that any person, principal officer or company, as referred to in that sub-section; who after deducting tax fails to pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the Act, is liable to pay simple interest at one and one-half percent for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deducted to the date on which such tax is actually paid."

(iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that while processing TDS statement filed by the assessee u/s. 154, the system has rightly charged interest as per the provisions of section 201(1A) of the IT Act. 1961."

‘’10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts / Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.’’ 4. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue as not maintainable.