Case Law Details
Case Name : Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Bombay High Court
Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The assessee, a consortium, was awarded a contract by MMRDA for the monorail project. The assessee filed an application u/s 197 for a certificate that MMRDA be directed to deduct tax at 0.11% on the ground that the percentage of total tax liability to revenue was estimated to be 0.11%.
The AO rejected the application on the ground that Rule 28AA required figures for three previous years which were unavailable and no eTDS returns were filed by the assessee. A revision application filed u/s 264 was rejected by the CIT on the ground that (i) an...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Controversy apart, the point that should attract the notice of the FINMIN bosses is the attitude of the officers administering the law-will these very officers tolerate such conduct of an officer if this were their own case? And, it may perhaps be found that the CIT as well as the underlings involved in the case have already been propmoted-and may be, even on the basis of the “outstanding category” awarded to then because of this very case!
Does the department have the courage to take action against such patently incompetent, inadequate and useless burdens on the taxpayers?
197 section is full of controversies, guess even after a decade, this battle between dept and taxpayer is not going to end. Its high time the FM gets involved and bring out suitable law in the place of the existing section.