9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1108 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194A - tds on discounting charges - default for non deduction of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) - assessee in default - Held tat - The discounting charges paid by the assessee are not akin to interest on finance expenses. Therefore, no disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194A r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. See PR. CIT-06 VERSUS M. SONS GEMS N JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY M SONS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.) C/O SSAR & ASSOCIATES 2016 (4) TMI 1132 - DELHI HIGH COURT We also find force in the alternate argument raised by the Learned AR that L&T Finance Ltd. has paid the taxes on the discounting charges received from the assessee. Indeed The said proviso though inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1-4-2013 has been held to be retrospective in operation by recent decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT - decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of ?21,62,634/- under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Retrospective applicability of the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012. 3. Alleged breach of the Principles of Natural Justice by lower authorities. 4. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of ?21,62,634/- under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194A: The assessee, a company engaged in trading construction materials, claimed an expense of ?21,62,634/- under the head "interest on finance" in its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this amount on the grounds that the assessee failed to deduct TDS under Section 194A read with Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the expenses were discounting charges paid to L&T Finance Ltd. and not interest, thus not falling under the purview of Section 194A. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2012, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal, however, found that discounting charges do not fall under the definition of "interest" as per Section 2(28A) and thus, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in PCIT vs. M. Sons Gems N. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. to support its decision. 2. Retrospective Applicability of the Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia): The assessee alternatively argued that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, should be considered retrospective. This proviso states that if the payee has included the amount in their income and paid tax, the payer should not be treated as an assessee in default. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating the amendment was prospective. However, the Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., which held that the proviso is declaratory and curative, thus having retrospective effect from 1st April 2005. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted since L&T Finance Ltd. had paid taxes on the discounting charges. 3. Alleged Breach of the Principles of Natural Justice by Lower Authorities: The assessee contended that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate the facts and ignored various submissions, thereby breaching the Principles of Natural Justice. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to separately address this issue, as the primary grounds of appeal were decided in favor of the assessee. 4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D: The assessee also challenged the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D. The Tribunal noted that this issue was consequential to the primary grounds of appeal and did not require separate adjudication. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversing the orders of the lower authorities and ruling that the disallowance of ?21,62,634/- under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194A was unwarranted. The Tribunal also upheld the retrospective applicability of the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), thereby providing relief to the assessee. The order was pronounced in open court on 20/06/2018.
|
