Section 200

Section 200 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 200, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• DIT v Mitsubishi Corporation Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  My Indian payer did not deduct tax at source and paid me gross. The Assessing Officer says I should have paid advance tax and has charged s.234B interest. Which years can he do that for?
  Only from financial year 2012-13 onwards. The Supreme Court held that for every assessment up to and including financial year 2011-12, s.209(1)(d) entitled the assessee to reduce, in computing its advance tax, the income-tax that WOULD BE deductible at source, even though it had in fact received the full amount without deduction — so no s.234B interest could be charged. The proviso to s.209(1)(d) inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 reverses that, and from financial year 2012-13 the assessee cannot reduce tax that the payer failed to deduct.
• Shree Choudhary Transport Co. v Income Tax Officer Supreme CourtHelps department
  I am a transport contractor who hires trucks from individual owners and pays them freight. Does section 194C apply, and can section 40(a)(ia) disallow amounts I have already paid rather than merely owe?
  Yes to both. The Supreme Court held that section 194C applied to the payments the firm made to truck owners it engaged to carry the cement it had contracted to transport, so it was bound to deduct tax at source; that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not confined to amounts outstanding at the year end but applies equally to expenses already incurred and paid; that the provision as introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1 April 2005 governed assessment year 2005-06; and that the amendment of 2014 reducing the disallowance to thirty per cent gave the firm no benefit. Splitting a single freight payment into two vouchers below Rs 20,000 did not escape section 194C.
• Palam Gas Service v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I already paid my sub-contractors during the year and nothing was outstanding at 31 March — can section 40(a)(ia) still disallow the expense for not deducting TDS?
  Yes. The Supreme Court held on 3 May 2017 that the word "payable" in section 40(a)(ia) covers amounts actually paid as well as amounts still outstanding. Sections 194C and 200 require deduction at the time of credit or of payment, whichever is earlier, and payment over to the Government within the prescribed time; a person who ignores that obligation must bear the consequences the Act lays down, of which disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is one. The view of the Punjab and Haryana, Madras and Calcutta High Courts was approved, and the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. was overruled.
• Naresh Bhavani Shah (HUF) v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The HUF's money was invested in the karta's own name, so the TDS certificate and the 26AS entry carry his individual PAN. The HUF offered the interest to tax and the karta claimed no credit. The department says PAN mismatch, no credit. What now?
  The credit was directed to be given to the HUF. The Court held that the ordinary route is Rule 37BA(2) - the deductee files a declaration with the deductor, and the deductor issues the certificate in the name of the person entitled to credit - and that this procedure must invariably be completed before credit can be claimed where the certificate shows someone else's name and PAN. But it also held there is no dearth of power in the department to give credit in a genuine case, and on these special facts it directed credit on the karta filing an affidavit that the money and the income were not his and that he had claimed no credit.
• Court On Its Own Motion v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  CPC has refused my TDS credit and adjusted the refund against an old demand. What did the Delhi High Court actually direct?
  Taking up the problem on its own motion, the Delhi High Court issued directions on both limbs. A TDS claim supported by the deductor's certificate is not to be rejected merely because the uploaded information does not tally, and unmatched challans are to be verified and corrected within a fixed time. And s.245 is a two-stage provision: prior intimation of the proposed adjustment, a reply from the assessee, consideration of that reply by the Assessing Officer, an order under s.245, and communication of the outcome. A computerised set-off without that sequence does not comply with the section.
• CIT (TDS) v Superintendent of Police High CourtHelps taxpayer
  CPC has raised a s.272B penalty of ten thousand rupees for each of 196 deductees whose PANs were invalid in my TDS statement. The deductees gave me those numbers. Is that reasonable cause?
  Yes, on these facts. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of a Rs 19,60,000 penalty levied at Rs 10,000 per default for 196 invalid PANs in a quarterly TDS statement. The Court held that whether sufficient cause had been shown within s.273B was a question of fact, on which the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently found in the assessee's favour after examining the explanation, and that no substance remained in the Revenue's argument.
• ACIT v Om Prakash Gattani High CourtCuts both ways
  The deductor deducted my tax and never deposited it. The Assessing Officer says he cannot give me credit until the money reaches the treasury, and has attached my bank account. Is he right on both counts?
  He may be right on the first and is wrong on the second. This is the foundational decision holding that s.205 bars any recovery from the deductee once tax has in fact been deducted, whether or not the deductor paid it over - the garnishee notices under s.226(3) were quashed - while at the same time holding that credit under s.199 is contingent on the tax being paid to the Central Government, so the Assessing Officer's note withholding credit until proof of payment was allowed to stand.
• Bhura Mal Raj Mal v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer has passed a s.154 order shifting my TDS credit to the next year because the payer's accounting year is different from mine. Can he do that by rectification?
  No. The Rajasthan High Court held that the credit belongs to the year in which the income is assessed in the recipient's hands, not the year fixed by the payer's accounting year or the date on the certificate, and in any event the point was at best debatable, so s.154 could not be used at all. The consequential withdrawal of s.214 interest and charging of s.215 interest also fell.
• Gwalior Rayon Silk v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The TDS officer says I under-deducted on perquisites and wants the short tax under section 201(1) plus interest under section 201(1A). My estimate was honest. Does that answer the demand or only the penalty?
  It answers the demand itself. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that section 192 obliges the employer to deduct on the estimated income of the employee, so the employer has to form an opinion on his employee's liability and must do so honestly and fairly. If the estimate later turns out to be wrong, that fact alone does not support an inference that he failed to act honestly and fairly, and an employer who has deducted and paid tax on an honest estimate cannot be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1). Interest under section 201(1A) went with it, the revenue accepting that sub-section (1A) is not attracted where there is no default under sub-section (1).
• Notification 73/2022 — Form 26QF for exchanges CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The exchange agreed under the CBDT guidelines to pay the 1% on its own sale to me. How does that get reported, and where do I see it?
  Through Form 26QF, filed quarterly by the exchange. Where an exchange has agreed, under the guidelines issued under s.194S(6), to pay the tax on a transfer of a virtual digital asset owned by it instead of the buyer deducting, rule 31A(1) requires the exchange to deliver a quarterly statement of those transactions in Form 26QF. Sub-rule (4E) also requires the exchange to furnish particulars of amounts paid or credited on which no tax was deducted in accordance with the guidelines.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.