2014 (1) TMI 1885 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C or 194J - disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia)of the Act on account of short deduction of TDS - HELD THAT - Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in event of non-deduction of tax source but not for lesser deduction of tax. Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cinetek Telefilms 2013 (6) TMI 460 - ITAT MUMBAI relied on by the assessee is also relevant for the proposition that short deduction of tax at source cannot lead to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) and the decision taken by him is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for expenses with improper TDS rate.
2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS.
3. Interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) regarding TDS deduction.

Analysis:
1. The appeal dealt with the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for expenses due to improper TDS rate. The Revenue contended that disallowance should be made even if tax was deducted at an improper rate. The CIT (A) partially allowed the appeal, stating that disallowance is applicable only in cases of non-deduction of TDS, not for short deduction. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing precedents and provisions of section 40(a)(ia). The decision highlighted that disallowance can only be made if TDS was not deducted or not paid on time, not for lesser deduction.

2. The second issue revolved around disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS. The assessee argued that since tax was deducted u/s 194C and paid to the Government, no disallowance should be made. The CIT (A) agreed, emphasizing that disallowance is not applicable for short deduction but for non-deduction of TDS. The Tribunal supported this stance, referencing relevant case laws and provisions. It was clarified that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted for lesser deduction of TDS if tax was deducted and paid within the specified time.

3. The interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) regarding TDS deduction was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision applies to cases of non-deduction or non-payment of TDS within the specified timeframe. The decision relied on precedents and legal provisions to establish that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not justified for cases where TDS was deducted, even if the deduction was less than the prescribed rate. The judgment underscored that the legislative intent behind the provision was to penalize non-deduction or delayed payment of TDS, not minor discrepancies in deduction rates.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of section 40(a)(ia) in cases of TDS deduction, emphasizing that disallowance is not warranted for short deduction if tax was deducted and paid within the stipulated time. The decision provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and the legislative intent behind the section, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and upholding the CIT (A)'s order.