Imp Verdicts On S. 194C TDS, S. 234E TDS, Charities Regn, RTI Disclosure

Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Amritsar)

S. 234E: Prior to the amendment to s. 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fee for default in filing TDS statements cannot be recovered from the assessee-deductor

Section 200A was amended by the Finance Act 2015 with effect from 1st June 2015 to provide that in the course of processing of a TDS statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the fee computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E. As the law stood prior to 1st June 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E

 

Kapurthala Improvement Trust vs. CIT (ITAT Amritsar)

S. 11/ 12AA(3): The Proviso to s. 2(15) has no bearing on the grant or denial of registration. The applicability of the proviso has to be evaluated on a year to year basis and it only affects the grant of exemption u/s 11

The impact of the proviso to Section 2(15) being hit by the assessee will be that, to that extent, the assessee will not be eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. The mere fact that the assessee is granted registration under section 12 A or 12AA as a charitable institution will have no bearing on this denial of registration. As a corollary to this legal position, the fact that the objects of the assessee may be hit by the proviso to section 2(15) cannot have any bearing on the grant, denial or withdrawal of the registration under section 12AA

 

Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. ITO (ITAT Amritsar)

S. 194C: Only payments "in pursuance of a contract" are subject to TDS. Payments made under a legal obligation are not covered

It is only when payments are made “in pursuance of a contract” that the provisions of section 194C come into play. The contract may be oral or written, express or implied but there must be a contract nevertheless. In the present case, the payment is on account of legal obligation under section 24(1) of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act 1976. Accordingly, the provisions of section 194C did not come into play

 

Shailesh Gandhi vs. CIC & Ajit Pawar (Bombay High Court)

RTI Act: Disclosure of income-tax returns of a politician on the ground that it is necessary for “purity of elections” and “probity in public life” is not possible as it is not in “public interest”

The details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns is personal information which has been exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the said Act, unless involved a larger public and the CPIO and or State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information