Six Important Judgements On S. 195 And S. 40(a)(ia) TDS, S. 147 Reopening + RTI Act Etc

ACIT vs. Vilas N. Tamhankar (ITAT Mumbai)

Impact of Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 on law laid down in GE India Technology Centre 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained
The law laid down in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC) that there is no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 if the sum is not chargeable to tax in India is not affected by Explanation 2 to section 195(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 […]

The Ramanthali Service Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Cochin)

S. 40(a)(ia) second proviso is not retrospective & so payment of TDS before due date of ROI does not prevent disallowance. Law laid down in Vector Shipping cannot be followed
(i) The next question arises for consideration is whether the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as incorporated by Finance Act, 2012 is retrospective in operation or prospective in operation. We are conscious that some of the benches of this Tribunal in the country has taken the view that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is […]

ITO vs. M. B. Jewellers P. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

S. 147/ 151: Reopening mechanically on the basis of material received from another AO is bad. Merely noting "approved" without recording satisfaction is bad
(i) A perusal of the above demonstrates that the AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment during the year. A mere reference is made to certain information received from the CIT, Delhi II vide an endorsement. […]

CIT vs. Delhi Race Club (Delhi High Court)

S. 9(1)(vi): Broadcast or live coverage does not have a "copyright" & is consequently not assessable as "royalty" for purposes of TDS
(i) A live T.V coverage of any event is a communication of visual images to the public and would fall within the definition of the word “broadcast” in Section 2(dd). That apart we note that Section 13 does not contemplate broadcast as a work in which “copyright” subsists as the said Section contemplates “copyright” to […]

Naresh Trehan vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Delhi High Court)

RTI Act: Income-tax returns are confidential and cannot be disclosed except where disclosure is in public interest and outweighs possible harm to the assessee
(i) Undoubtedly, the income tax returns and information provided to Income Tax Authorities by assessees is confidential and not required to be placed in public domain. Given the nature of the income tax returns and the information necessary to support the same, it would be exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act in respect of […]

Jehangir H C Jehangir vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

S. 254: ITAT cannot decline to admit additional ground of appeal on the ground that it would in any case be answered against the appellant on merits

In the light of authoritative pronouncement in National Thermal Power Limited Company V/s. CIT 229 ITR 383 and which was binding on the Tribunal, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, we do not see how the Tribunal could have disallowed the Assessee from raising this ground. It may be that the […]