9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 719 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of labour charges and sales commission for non-deduction of tax at source (TDS) - Amount was not outstanding as on 31st March as payable - Held that - Section 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable but also when it is paid. - The Supreme Court has pointed out that Section 194C mandates a person to deduct tax at source not only on the amounts payable but also when the sums are actually paid to the contractor, and any person who does not adhere to such a statutory obligation has to suffer the consequences stipulated in the Act of 1961. The issue stands squarely settled in favour of the Revenue - Decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
Disallowance of labour charges and sales commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard an appeal by the Revenue regarding an order passed by the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, related to the assessment year 2007-2008. The main issue was the correctness of directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The Revenue argued that the disallowance should cover amounts payable at any time during the year, not just as of 31st March, citing a Circular by CBDT and a decision of the Supreme Court in Palam Gas Service. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the taxpayer based on a Special Bench decision. The Revenue served notice to the respondent, but there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue contended that the legal position on the subject disallowance is settled by the Supreme Court's judgment in Palam Gas Service case. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 40(a)(ia) covers cases where the amount is paid, not just payable, and failure to deduct tax at source on such payments has consequences under the Act of 1961. In light of this judgment, the High Court held that the issue is settled in favor of the Revenue, answering the question of law in the negative and allowing the appeal. Any pending petitions were closed with no order as to costs.
|
