In This Income Tax Appeal, All Three Substantial Questionsof Law Raised Are Said To Be Covered By The Decision Of Theapex Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of I v. In View Of The Above, As All The Questions Raised Standanswered By The Above Decision, The Appeal Has No Meritand Is, Accordingly, Dismissed
High Court
01 Nov 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisdb_16012018
Parties
In This Income Tax Appeal, All Three Substantial Questionsof Law Raised Are Said To Be Covered By The Decision Of Theapex Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of I v. In View Of The Above, As All The Questions Raised Standanswered By The Above Decision, The Appeal Has No Meritand Is, Accordingly, Dismissed
Date of order
01 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In In This Income Tax Appeal, All Three Substantial Questionsof Law Raised Are Said To Be Covered By The Decision Of Theapex Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of I v. In View Of The Above, As All The Questions Raised Standanswered By The Above Decision, The Appeal Has No Meritand Is, Accordingly, Dismissed, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal under Section 194 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the above, as all the questions raised standanswered by the above decision, the appeal has no meritand is, accordingly, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 114 of 2018
Appellant :- The Commisioner Of Income Tax (Tds) And AnotherRespondent :- Union Bank Of IndiaCounsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Mahajan
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for theappellant.
In this Income Tax Appeal, all three substantial questionsof law raised are said to be covered by the decision of theApex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) and another Vs. Canara Bank, 2018 (406) ITR161 SC, wherein it has been held that corporationestablished by a Central, State or Provincial Act, such asNew Okhla Industrial Development Authority, that isinvolved in the present case which is established bynotification under the U.P. Industrial Area DevelopmentAct, 1976 is not amenable to deduction of tax at sourceand therefore the bank is not liable to deduct tax atsource on interest paid to such authorities under Section194 (A) of the Income Tax Act.
In view of the above, as all the questions raised standanswered by the above decision, the appeal has no meritand is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.11.2018Nirmal
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue