9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - if payment of TDS is made before the due date of filing of the return as envisaged u/s 139(1), addition could not be made - Since the payment of balance amount of TDS has been made in the month of June, 2005, which is much before the due date for filing of the return as envisaged u/s 139(1), therefore, addition U/s 40(a)(ia) could not be made – the order of the Tribunal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as the substantial questions of law framed. The assessee is engaged in the business of export of ready made garments etc. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain why TDS, deducted was deposited after 31.5.2005. The Assessing Officer, being dissatisfied with the explanation, held that in view of late deposit of TDS, the corresponding expenditure is not allowable as a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations (supra) in which it has been held that if payment of TDS is made before the due date of filing of the return as envisaged U/s 139(1), addition could not be made. Since the payment of balance amount of TDS has been made in the month of June, 2005, which is much before the due date for filing of the return as envisaged U/s 139(1), therefore, addition U/s 40(a)(ia) could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinguish the aforesaid judgments or refer to any legal provision or principle that would enable us to differ with the opinion recorded in the aforementioned judgment or the order recorded by the ITAT. The assessee having deposited TDS before the date of filing of the return, the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing expenditure. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has, in our considered opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
