Skip to main content

Insurance company cannot deduct TDS on award amount

In The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hussain Babulal Shaikh, Petitioner-New India Assurance Company Limited filed instant petition challenging order passed by learned member of Maharashtra Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby an application of Respondent No.1 for issuance of warrant of attachment against Petitioner in execution of an award, for not depositing part of award amount, on ground that, same has been deducted as “tax deducted at source” (TDS), stands allowed. Issue which falls for consideration of the Court is 'whether the Petitioner would be justified in deducting tax at source (TDS) in respect of interest payment made under the award of the Tribunal.

As per Section 194A of Income Tax Act, 1961, when any person not being an individual or Hindu undivided family who becomes responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall at time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force. Sub-section (3) excludes the application of sub-section (1) and sub-clause (ix) thereof and provides that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such income credited or paid by way of interest on the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where amount of such income or, as case may be, aggregate of the amounts of such income paid during financial year does not exceed Rs.50,000/. Thus, for exemption from provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 194A, such income paid by way of interest on compensation amount awarded by Tribunal will not be liable for tax if aggregate amount of such interest income paid during financial year does not exceed Rs.50,000/¬.

The Division Bench of this Court in case of Gauri Deepak Patel & Ors. has accepted interpretation of Section 194A as laid down in decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of “Smt. Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.” and accordingly, laid down a procedure under which Insurance companies or owners of the motor vehicles deposit the amount in compliance of the Award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Directions of the Division Bench lay down a complete scheme which the Insurance company is required to follow when the amount of compensation is deposited in pursuance of the Award of Tribunal which include the interest amount.

Resultantly, action of Petitioner deducting tax at source on interest awarded by Tribunal, without following mandate of Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Deepak Patel & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. was unjustified and illegal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more