9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue. 3. ITA No.1485/Kol/2012 : In assessee's appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds :- "1. The orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, invalid and bad in law to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.4,61,24,937/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Without any prejudice to above, the ld. CIT(A) should have restricted the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,27,72,701/- only by taking into account in extra payment of tax of Rs3,12,204/- till Feburary, 2009, as explained to the CIT(A) durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted the disallowance on the ground that assessee had deducted TDS of Rs.28,24,936/- on the amount of Rs.21,12,98,546/-. It was the submission that ld. CIT(A) had further held that as an amount of Rs.22,08,276/- had been deposited before the due date of filing of the return representing the TDS made, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was laible to be made in respect of the amount of Rs.16,51,73,610/- being the amount supported by TDS of Rs.22,08,276/-. It was the submission that the order of ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed as the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act was made effective from 01.04.2010 whereas the assessment year under appeal was A.Year 2009-10. 5. In reply the ld. AR submitted that even in the pre-amended section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of the same should have been made before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. Even applying the unamended provision as claimed by AO the assessee would be entitled to the relief in respect of TDS deposited to the extent of Rs.22,08,276/- and the corresponding expenditure which has been rightly allowed by ld. CIT(A). In the circumstances we are of the view that the finding of ld. CIT(A) on this issue is on the right footing and does not call for any interference. 7. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In respect of the assessee's appeal it was submitted by the ld. AR that the addition as sustained by ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs.4,61,24,937/- was erroneous in so far as ld.CIT(A) had not take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
