9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 740 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194A - interest payment to NBFCs - non deduction of TDS - Disallowance of payment of interest u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) after considering the submissions and additional evidence filed by the assessee and findings of the AO has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the absence of any contradictory material being available on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) requires no interference and, therefore, is upheld. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are dismissed.
Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of interest payment to NBFCs u/s 40(a)(ia) for the assessment year 2014-15. Dispute Regarding Disallowance of Interest Payment: The assessee challenged the disallowance of interest payment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee, a transporter company, filed its return of income declaring a total income of Nil for the relevant year. During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee had paid interest charges on vehicle loans obtained from various NBFCs. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest amount as TDS was not deducted under section 194A of the Act. The assessee contended that since EMIs were paid through post-dated cheques, TDS deduction did not apply. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance stating that the assessee failed to meet the conditions under section 201(1) of the Act, as required for the 1st proviso to section 201. The appeal challenging this decision was dismissed by the ITAT Mumbai. Key Points: - The assessee's appeal challenged the disallowance of interest payment to NBFCs u/s 40(a)(ia) for the assessment year 2014-15. - The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest amount as TDS was not deducted under section 194A of the Act. - The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to meet the conditions under section 201(1) of the Act for the 1st proviso to section 201. - The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
|
