Itta/631/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. M/S. Andhra Bank
High Court
15 Oct 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/631/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. M/S. Andhra Bank
Date of order
15 Oct 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/631/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. M/S. Andhra Bank, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 631 of 2014
DATED:15.10.2014
Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS),Hyderabad.
And
… Appellant
M/s. Andhra Bank,Hyderabad.
….Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
We have heard Mr. S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant and have gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal has correctly held that the amendmentto Section 17(2)(ii) in the Finance Act, 2007 which was broughtinto force with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002 could not havebeen foreseen by the assessee for deducting tax at source whilemaking payment of salary. In the aforesaid circumstances, taxwas to be deducted at the time when the amount was paid. Butwhen this provision was not brought into the statute book at thattime, there could not be any compliance. However, as soon as itis detected, the assessee has started deducting tax at source,which is a prerequisite from the financial year 2007-08.
We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugnedjudgment of the learned Tribunal. The appeal is accordinglydismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if anypending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR,
J
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.