9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot “paid”. In the present case, the commission involved undisputedly stands paid. Therefore expression “payable” has been used which suggests that disallowance would be made of those expenses which are payable on 31st of March of every Year. Hence disallowance in the case of the assessee is not sustainable. Appeal decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 250/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2012 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA JJ. Appellant by: Shri RS Adlakha, Adv. Respondent by: Smt. Venu Joshi, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) dated 03.11.2011 passed for assessment year 2006-07. In brief, the grievance of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unishable. 2. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of SRS Real Estates has made following observations: 7. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The issue is as to whether the disallowance was wrongly made and confirmed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. As per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: Notwithstanding with in any contrary in sections 30 to [38] the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession , - (a) (ia) any .commission payable to resident, .fees ..carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DS provisions in the case of residents and to curb bogus payments to them. 10. The above ratio in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra) has been followed in K. Srinivas Naidu (supra). 11. No decision to the contrary has been cited before us. 12. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the CIT(A) erred in not following Jaipur Vidyug Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra). The CIT(A) has held, while observing that Jaipur Vidyug Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra) was not binding on him, as it was not from the jurisdictional bench of the Tribunal, that whether the amount for TDS purposes is paid or payable, the provision of section 40(a)(ia) are attracted in both cases, due to their penal implications. However, the CIT(A) has not cited any decision in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
