9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 on the following grounds: 1(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 40 (a) (ia) of ₹ 48,29,076/- 1.(ii) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the very operation of section 40(a) (ia) revolves around prescribed dates and any lapse invokes disallowance. Hence, failure to file the Form 15-I within the prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be filed on or before 30-06-2007 as per Rule 29-B of the IT Rules. The AO accordingly disallowed the carting expenses of ₹ 48,29,076/- u/s 40 (a) (ia) of the IT Act. It was submitted before the learned CIT(A) that as per proviso to section 194 C (3) (i) of the IT Act declaration in Form NO.15-I was obtained, therefore, there was no liability of deduction of tax at sources and that such for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. The learned DR submitted that Rule 29 D of the IT Rules is procedural in nature. The submission of the learned DR itself shows that since the compliance of the rule was procedural only, therefore, when the assessee obtained requisite declaration and filed the same with delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
