9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses can be disallowed for want of TDS. Sec 40(a)(ia) can apply only to expenditure which is “payable” as of 31st March and does not apply to expenditure which has been already paid during the year.” - Order of the CIT(A) is set aside and restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same - decided in favor of assessee. Decision in M/s Merilyn Shipping Transport & Others [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] [(SB)(Vizag)], followed. - ITA No. 752/HYD/2010 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2012 - SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, JJ. Appellant by : Shri B.V. Prasad Reddy Respondent by : Shri M.V. Joshi ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recomputation of deduction u/s.10A, the AO had erred in deducting the telecommunication charges from the export turnover and not from the total turnover. 4. With regard to the disallowance of Rs.16.,62,151/- made u/s.40(a)(ia) on the ground that TDS amount were not remitted into the Government Account within the due date, it was submitted by the AR that Assessing officer erred in not making this disallowance since it has been held the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) apply only in respect to amounts which are payable and not in respect of amounts which have been paid. The AR placed reliance of decisions and CBDT Circular No.5 of 2005 dated 25.07.2005 which had clarified that the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) were brought into the Act to augment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... professional charges and payments made to contractors but has not been remitted within the due dates to the Government account. The appellant s contention that since the amounts have been already paid, the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) will not apply to it find support in the decisions cited earlier. 6. The CIT(A) further held that 4.2. In view of the details filed and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon ble Tribunal (Hyderabad bench) in the case of M/s.Teja Constructions (supra) and of the Jodhpur Bench in the case of M/s.Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nirman Corpn. I hold that since the amounts in question have been paid disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is not attracted, the disallowance is deleted and the appellant is gets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO 3. The interpretation of Sec.40(a)(ia) by the CIT(A) is not in harmony with the legislature intention. 4. Whether the communication charges reduced from the Export turnover should also be reduced from the total turnover, eventhough there is no provision in Section 10A of the I..T.Act 5. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the amount disallowed the disallowance of Rs.16.62,151/- u/s.40(a)(ia) holding that they are already paid, without verifying the books of accounts. 6. Any other ground urged at the time of hearing . 8. We heard both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. With regard to telecommunication charges r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
