Top-up
SG
CPC useful info.>
Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) One Anand Parkash, FCA, addressed a letter dated 30.4.2012 to the High Court in which he set out the numerous problems being faced by the assesses across the Country owing to the faulty processing of the Income Tax Returns and non-grant of TDS credit & refunds. He claimed that…
<previous>
Income Tax Refund Set-Off without prior intimation to Assessee is invalid
>>>>
Banks gone bad: Our evolved morality has failed us by Christopher Boehm
>previous
HC issued guidelines to end TDS credit & refund adjustment harassment of Assessee by CPU
<> April 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM
The HC has in several contexts , as is seen, made quite clear two crucial points:
Many of the problems could have been avoided had the AO followed, besides others,
(A)the rules book in regard to the mandates of section 143 (1); and
(B) the department’s own procedural directives issued from time to time requiring the uploading of ‘arrears’ only after a proper verification, -
BOTH A MUST.
KEY NOTE: By and large, going by the ‘weighty’ observations of the HC , not only found in so many words but also by necessary implication/inference, in one’s strong view , it could be validly urged by every aggrieved taxpayer that, using a common colloquial expression, -“THE BALL IS IN ASSESSING OFFICERS’ COURT”. To put it differently, and pithily stating, it could be validly pressed forth that, the AO, or for that matter even the newly introduced CPC, cannot go ahead with enforcing any ‘demand’, especially in any given case coming in the category / caught within the mischief of any of the instances broadly covered in the HC’s order. If he does so, in one’s longstanding conviction, he would be acting in gross violation / venial breach of , not only the HC’s Order (verging on contempt of court), but the department’s own instructions/directives said to have been issued (despite repeatedly) but had not been acted upon thus far.
Without the need to specially underscore,-it is now in the portals of the CBDT alone to see to it that the speediest steps are taken to settle the ‘scores’, thereby set at rest once for all the ongoing hardships meted out to the honest taxpaying public,for too long to justify,at the behest of the subordinate authorities, including the AOs and the CPC under its own exclusive control.
itatonline
Primary Navigation
SG
CPC useful info.>
|
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 08:29 PM PDT
To assist taxpayers, a limited call center service with two agents has been established at ITD-CPC, Bangalore. Taxpayer queries on status of ITR-V receipt at CPC, Bangalore will be answered on 080-22546500 and on toll Free no. 1800-425- 2229 between 8:00 AM to 8 PM. The service will be available in...
 |
|
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 08:28 PM PDT
Article deals with FAQ related to Non receipt of ITR-V, Intimation u/s 143(1), Rectification order U/s. 154 and how to request for reissue of them online. It further deals with CPC Email ID, Helpline Number Working Hours etc.
 Add-on> See also CBDT’s letter dated 03.09.2012 on resolving all arrear demand grievances, CPC Workshop, CBDT Scheme For Processing Of TDS & Adjustment Of Refunds & Press Release on Deductor’s obligations & Dear Department, Will You End Your TDS & Refund Harassment Now? |
<><>
- Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
The problem is apparent, real and enormous. It has escalated because of Centralized Computerization and problems associated with incorrect and wrong data which is uploaded by both the deductors or payees and the AOs. The issue is of general governance, failure of administration, fairness and arbitrariness. The magnitude of…
Income Tax Refund Set-Off without prior intimation to Assessee is invalid
>>>>
Banks gone bad: Our evolved morality has failed us by Christopher Boehm
>previous
HC issued guidelines to end TDS credit & refund adjustment harassment of Assessee by CPU
<> April 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM
The HC has in several contexts , as is seen, made quite clear two crucial points:
Many of the problems could have been avoided had the AO followed, besides others,
(A)the rules book in regard to the mandates of section 143 (1); and
(B) the department’s own procedural directives issued from time to time requiring the uploading of ‘arrears’ only after a proper verification, -
BOTH A MUST.
KEY NOTE: By and large, going by the ‘weighty’ observations of the HC , not only found in so many words but also by necessary implication/inference, in one’s strong view , it could be validly urged by every aggrieved taxpayer that, using a common colloquial expression, -“THE BALL IS IN ASSESSING OFFICERS’ COURT”. To put it differently, and pithily stating, it could be validly pressed forth that, the AO, or for that matter even the newly introduced CPC, cannot go ahead with enforcing any ‘demand’, especially in any given case coming in the category / caught within the mischief of any of the instances broadly covered in the HC’s order. If he does so, in one’s longstanding conviction, he would be acting in gross violation / venial breach of , not only the HC’s Order (verging on contempt of court), but the department’s own instructions/directives said to have been issued (despite repeatedly) but had not been acted upon thus far.
Without the need to specially underscore,-it is now in the portals of the CBDT alone to see to it that the speediest steps are taken to settle the ‘scores’, thereby set at rest once for all the ongoing hardships meted out to the honest taxpaying public,for too long to justify,at the behest of the subordinate authorities, including the AOs and the CPC under its own exclusive control.
itatonline
Primary Navigation
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Mumbai 
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2013/03/bl-budget-proposal-sec-194ia.html
http://www.itatonline.org/info/index.php/cbdt-circular-on-procedure-for-refund-of-excess-tds-deducted-paid/
>CIRCULAR NO. 2/2011 [F.NO. 385/25/2010-IT(B)], DATED 27-4-2011
<> March 29, 2013 at 7:53 AM
@vswami
An add-on:
One of the grievances of taxpayers-deductees anxiously gone into by the Court pertains to the “U” factor -that is, unmatched TDS data.
One is aware of cases, in which the deductor is a leading PSB, both in the Form 16A issued to the deductee and in the 26AS, against a number of items adding up to thousands of rupees, the status is denoted ‘unmatched’. To one’s understanding, the HC has, in fact, adequately underscored the crucial point to the effect that by no imagination or for no rhyme or reason, the deductee could be expected to provide any explanation in respect of such items. For, if at all, it is entirely upto the deductor, who has within his knowledge, to explain, also set right the deficiencies.
In this context,the following should inevitably be borne in mind / kept in sharp focus:
1. The requirement of TDS calls for strict compliance by the Deductor / Deductor alone – by NONE ELSE; certainly not by the deductee.
2. This is a legal requirement and in complying therewith he acts as the ‘agent’ of the Revenue; certainly not as per the wish / at the behest of the deductee, who has no say in the matter.
3. In the scheme of things under the law, which is quite loud and clear, therefore,the sole responsibility lies with the Deductor – hence, essentially, it is he, and he alone, who could be sanely questioned by the Revenue or be expected to provide a satisfactory explanation/answer in respect of such difficulties,- more particularly, in cases where, on his own admission,as borne out both by Forms- 16A and 26AS, he has in fact deducted tax and paid into the Treasury.
Perceptibly, the newly introduced provision (albeit belatedly) – Section 200A, one would urge, lends full credence to the foregoing viewpoints. For that matter,as it, in terms, provides, in case of any shortfall in TDS,for whatever reason, it is recoverable only from the Deductor,- leaving no scope whatsoever for Revenue to proceed against the Deductee.
The soonest the CBDT issues clear-cut clarifications / instructions to its subordinates, the best for the gullible Deductees.
Representation sent to Revenue via e'mail on 30th Mar 2013>
<> March 29, 2013 at 7:53 AM
@vswami
An add-on:
One of the grievances of taxpayers-deductees anxiously gone into by the Court pertains to the “U” factor -that is, unmatched TDS data.
One is aware of cases, in which the deductor is a leading PSB, both in the Form 16A issued to the deductee and in the 26AS, against a number of items adding up to thousands of rupees, the status is denoted ‘unmatched’. To one’s understanding, the HC has, in fact, adequately underscored the crucial point to the effect that by no imagination or for no rhyme or reason, the deductee could be expected to provide any explanation in respect of such items. For, if at all, it is entirely upto the deductor, who has within his knowledge, to explain, also set right the deficiencies.
In this context,the following should inevitably be borne in mind / kept in sharp focus:
1. The requirement of TDS calls for strict compliance by the Deductor / Deductor alone – by NONE ELSE; certainly not by the deductee.
2. This is a legal requirement and in complying therewith he acts as the ‘agent’ of the Revenue; certainly not as per the wish / at the behest of the deductee, who has no say in the matter.
3. In the scheme of things under the law, which is quite loud and clear, therefore,the sole responsibility lies with the Deductor – hence, essentially, it is he, and he alone, who could be sanely questioned by the Revenue or be expected to provide a satisfactory explanation/answer in respect of such difficulties,- more particularly, in cases where, on his own admission,as borne out both by Forms- 16A and 26AS, he has in fact deducted tax and paid into the Treasury.
Perceptibly, the newly introduced provision (albeit belatedly) – Section 200A, one would urge, lends full credence to the foregoing viewpoints. For that matter,as it, in terms, provides, in case of any shortfall in TDS,for whatever reason, it is recoverable only from the Deductor,- leaving no scope whatsoever for Revenue to proceed against the Deductee.
The soonest the CBDT issues clear-cut clarifications / instructions to its subordinates, the best for the gullible Deductees.
Representation sent to Revenue via e'mail on 30th Mar 2013>
The proposed provision Section 194 IA has met with adverse comments / critique even from quarters having no 'vested interests'. It is largely felt, from the viewpoints of the concerned people at large, to be precise the category of 'individuals' who , for obvious reasons, were not so far subjected to the most cumbersome regime of TDS, are sought to be (in a second attempt) brought within its purview. Certainly, as common sense should dictate, TDS is not to be regarded as the route or gimmicks, in any view the preferred one, for checking tax evasion in the field of transactions in immovable properties. For that matter, in comparison, the PAN and AIR measures should be pursued effectively and with all sincerity and earnestness. Especially so, having in full focus the hardships and woes thrusted upon and suffered by those already covered by the TDS regime, as amply borne out by the referred HC's Order.
No comments:
Post a Comment