9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] Thus in this case since there is dispute of short deposit and not a dispute of non deposit therefore, the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are not applicable and the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not sustainable in the eyes of the law - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 154/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2016 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM For The Appellant : Shri Darshik Shah For The Respondent : Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal ORDER Per Sandeep Gosain, J. M.: The Present Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, dated 23.10.2012 whereby CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and is liable to be set aside. 3. The appellants crave leave to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds in appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was e-filed by the assessee company on 27.09.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 64,33,320/-. The return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice were issued and served on the assessee. Ld. AO after seeking the reply from the assessee had passed the order of assessment dated 05.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and computed the total income. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled herein below:- 1. Highlight Pictures (India) (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 187 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2. CIT vs. S.K.Tekriwal [2014] 46 taxmann.com 444(Calcutta) 3. Three Star Granites (P.)Ltd vs. ACIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 578 (Cochin-Trib.) 4. ACIT vs. Pankaj Bhargava [2013] 33 taxmann.com 484 (Delhi Trib.) 5. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. vs ACIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 103 (Delhi Trib.) 6. Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs DCIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 593(Cochin Trib.) 7. DCIT vs Chandabhoy Jassobhoy [2012] 17 taxmann.com 158(Mum.) 8. Nitin M. Panchamiya vs. ACIT [2012] 19 taxmann.com 200 (Mum.) 9. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 142 (MumTrib.) 10. Hindustan Thompson Associates (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention of the assessee deserves to be rejected. In result, the ground is rejected. 4.1 After analyising the aforesaid portion of the CIT(A) we have noticed that the CIT(A) has simply mentioned that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) are attracted even in the case of short deduction of TDS whereas on the contrary we have gone through the judgments relied upon by the ld. AR and after going through those judgments we are of the firm view that the provision of section 40(a) (ia) are only attracted in the case of non deduction and non deposit of TDS. We have noticed that section 40(a) (ia) of the Act contents two wings i.e. non deduction and non deposit of TDS and it renders only the duty to deduct the tax and to pay to government accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
