Partly allowed

M/S Alliance Beverly Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Tds

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2021WP/6570/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to direct Income Tax authorities to accept a manual application for lower TDS deduction under Section 197. Court directed a decision within one week with contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on Annexure-'H' within one week from the date of release of the order.

M/S Alliance Beverly Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy /… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.6570/2021 (T-IT)

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Alliance Beverly Constructions Pvt. Ltd., No.85, Marathahalli,

¶9

K.R. Puram, Karthik Nagar, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru - 560 037 Rep. by its Director, Mr. Kamalakara Manjunath Shet, 76 years. … Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Aravind V Chavan, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, Circle - 1(1), HMT Building, Ganganagar, Bengaluru - 560 032.

¶13

Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, HMT Building, Ganganagar, Bengaluru - 560 032. … Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate)

¶15

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to accept the application filed at Annexure-H dated 20.03.2021 and process the same in accordance with Section 197 of the IT Act read with Rule 28AA of the IT Rules within one week and etc.

¶17

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept the application filed at Annexure-'H' dated 20.03.2021 and process the same in accordance with Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w Rule 28AA of the Income Tax Rules.

¶20

The facts as made out in the petition is that the petitioner was not in a position to send his application seeking deduction at a lower rate in terms of Section 197 of the Income Tax Act in the e-mode as required under Rule 28 of the Income Tax Rules.

¶21

It is further submitted that due to their inability to file the application electronically, which they claim was not due to their fault, they sent the application by Registered Post seeking permission for deduction at lower rate. The copy of said representation sent to the respondents is at Annexure-'H'.

¶22

¶23

It is submitted that despite representation being sent on 20.03.2021, the request for acceptance of manual application and to grant lower rate of deduction of TDS, till date no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. Contentions are also made out that in light of the circumstances as made out, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the application in manual form in the interest of justice.

¶24

Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that decision would be taken in accordance with law.

¶25

In light of urgency as expressed, respondent no.1 is directed to take a decision as regards Annexure-'H' within a period of one week from the date of release of the order. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. The respondents are at liberty to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner if so requested.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

Np/-

M/S Alliance Beverly Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Tds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Alliance Beverly Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Tds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Private Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs M/S Skyline Construction and Housing Private

M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Private Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Hussainabba @ Hussain Vs State of Karnataka

M. v. Subba Reddy Vs the Executive Director

Smt Nethravathi S K Vs N Umashankar