ITO (TDS), ROHTAK vs. M/S. VEETEE FINE FOOD LTD., SONEPAT

ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

by the Revenue are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A), Rohtak has erred in law in deleting the demand of Rs.2,04,966/- (1,66,639+38,327) interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, which was created by A.O.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A), Rohtak has erred on law and facts in treating the payment made to COBCOR is not subject to TDS, ignoring the facts that CONCOR is a company incorporated in 1988 under Companies Act whose income is taxable s per the provision of the Act and, therefore, freight payment to CONCOR is subject to TDS u/s 194C of the Act.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” Moonigpa Finvest P.Ltd. A.Y. 2002-03

3. None was present on behalf of the assessee. We have heard Shri J.P.Chandrekar, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. On a query from the Bench the Ld.Sr.D.R. vehemently contended that the tax effect in the case on hand is more than the limit prescribed by the CBDT at the time of filing of the appeal and that the fresh Circular of the CBDT clearly mentions that the tax effect limit of Rs.4 lakhs is prospective in nature and hence the limits prescribed in the Circular cannot be applied to appeals filed for the earlier Assessment Years. It was contended that the limit applies to appeals filed after the date of the Circular.