9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1799 - AT - Income TaxNon deduction of TDS - disallowance - applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act - whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) by holding that TDS disallowance applies only to amounts payable as on 31st March and not to amounts already paid during the year? - Held that - this issue is covered by the order of ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Shri Antony D. Mundackal Vs. ACIT 2013 (12) TMI 67 - ITAT COCHIN , where it was held that sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4,2013 is clarificatory in nature and hence the benefit of the same should be applied retrospectively - appeal restored on preliminary issue for fresh adjudication.
Issues:
1. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - Applicability to amounts already paid during the year. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Pune, for A.Y. 2007-08. The main issue raised was whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) by holding that TDS disallowance applies only to amounts 'payable' as on 31st March and not to amounts already paid during the year. The Authorized Representative pointed out that a similar issue was addressed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench in a previous case. The ITAT observed that the second proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, might have retrospective applicability. The ITAT set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for further examination, indicating that the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT noted that nothing contrary was presented on behalf of the revenue, and since the facts were similar to the previous case, the matter was also set aside to the Assessing Officer based on the legal decision mentioned earlier. The ITAT refrained from commenting on the merit of the issue at hand, as the issue was being restored to the assessing officer for further review. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment was pronounced on January 15, 2014, in an open court session.
|
