Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Assessee Shall Not Be Called Upon to Pay Tax Deducted by Employer –Protects Employee Rights: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that bolsters the rights of employees, the Delhi High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia, delivered a landmark judgment on November 29, 2023, providing major relief to taxpayers across the nation. The Court decisively held that “the assessee shall not be called upon to pay tax to the extent tax has been deducted from that income,” emphasizing the protection of employees from undue tax demands.

The case, centered on a writ petition filed by Mr. Bhanu Mohan Kaila, challenged the arbitrary tax demand of Rs. 21,50,150 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Despite tax deduction at source by his employer, Kingfisher Airlines Limited, the tax was not deposited with the revenue department. This led to the petitioner facing repeated notices of demand from the respondents.

The Court's decision was anchored in the interpretation of Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that an employee cannot be held liable for tax deducted at source by their employer but not deposited with the Central Government. The bench underscored the principles laid out in Sanjay Sudan vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other similar cases, reiterating that coercive recovery of tax in such situations is barred.

In delivering the judgment, the bench observed, “We have heard counsel for the parties. According to us, Section 205 read with instruction dated 01.06.2015, clearly point in the direction that the deductee/assessee cannot be called upon to pay tax, which has been deducted at source from his income.” This observation laid the foundation for the judgment, thereby setting a precedent for similar cases.

The Court ultimately allowed the petition, setting aside the tax demand notices and restraining the respondents from carrying out any recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the specified assessment year. However, it was clarified that if the petitioner recovers any amount of tax deducted at source from his employer, it must be deposited with the revenue.

Date of Decision:29.11.2023

BHANU MOHAN KAILA  VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.        

Latest Legal News