2020 (12) TMI 773 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - disallowance of interest - Scope of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - We find that while allowing the claim of the assessee, CIT(A) has given a finding that payee has included the interest income in its total income and has also filed the return of income and therefore no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee in view of the fact that the 2nd proviso to said section has been held to be clarificatory in nature. CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of Rajeev Agarwal 2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA while deciding the issue - In the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT has also held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) to be declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Before us, Revenue has not pointed any fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A) nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of these fact, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of short-term capital gain/loss - AO noted that it had demolished the existing building and since the building was demolished and it was the only asset in the block of asset , the written down value as appearing in the fixed scheduled for Income Tax working was claimed as Short Term Capital loss u/s 50(2) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given a finding that assessee had followed the right method of calculating the short term capital loss on the building which was demolished during the year and since there was no other asset in the said block, assessee had claimed the WDV of the said asset as short term capital loss as per the provision of Section 50(2) - Before us, no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue nor Revenue has placed any contrary binding decision in its support - Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on interest payment.
2. Disallowance of short-term capital loss on account of demolition of building.

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on interest payment:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of the assessee for interest payment under section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deposit of TDS. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) allowed the claim based on the payee including the interest income in total income and filing the return. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as clarificatory and retrospective. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary decision or point out errors in the CIT(A)'s findings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Disallowance of short-term capital loss on account of demolition of building:
The AO denied the claim of short-term capital loss on the demolition of a building, stating that Section 50(2) did not apply as there was no transfer of asset. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the proportionate apportionment of building and land costs, and the correct method followed for calculating the loss. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, but failed to present any flaws in the reasoning. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and directing the carry forward of the loss.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The first issue involved the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for interest payment, where the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be correct based on the retrospective applicability of the second proviso. The second issue concerned the disallowance of short-term capital loss due to building demolition, with the Tribunal supporting the CIT(A)'s reasoning on the correct method of calculating the loss.