9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- As held in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar [2013 (7) TMI 454 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the impugned amendment to section 40(a)(ia) permits remittance of TDS to the Central Government account on or before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act is retrospective in nature. Same view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. PEC Electrical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in this appeal is pertaining to the disallowance of ₹ 65,89,810/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 3. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that there was delay in making payment of tax deducted at source by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, he worked out the disallowance at ₹ 65,89,810/-. 4. On appeal, before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) and, therefore, no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record as well as gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
