9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS under the provision of section 194C of the Act and paid before the 30th May 2006. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in laws in sustaining the addition of Rs. 60.91 lacs towards labor payments, without considering the facts that none of the labour contractor have taxable income and provisions of section 43B and 191 r.w.s other provisions of chapter XVII of the Act. 2 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of civil construction in the name and style of Elevate Construction. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee did not deduct tax at source or tax deducted at source was not deposited before 31-03-2006 in respect of payments of Rs. 60,91,078/- ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the order of the AO. 6 After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we find that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Alpha Projects in 2869/Ahd/2011, order dated 23-03-2012, has held as under:- "6. Ground No. 2 is with regard to disallowance of u/s. 40(a)(ia). The Ld. CIT(A) has given view which reproduced as under:- "3.2 I have considered the matter. Disallowance of Hs.3,69,568/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) was in respect of amount credited in months of February and January, 2006, tax deducted from which was deposited to the credit of Government in April/August 2006. Appellant has relied upon decision of ITA T, Ahmedabad in the case of Kanubhai Ramjibhai Makwana (201 1) 44 SOT 264 (Ahd) that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) as amended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent before 31.3.2006 is confirmed." 7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and orders passed by the authorities below. The issue involved in the present appeal has now been decided by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creators in GA No.3200/2011 dated 23-11-2011 against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.2404/Mum/2009 in order dated 12-09-2011 has taken a view that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply accordingly. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creators (supra) the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
