9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the due date for filing of the return. In view of the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by virtue of amendment dated 01.04.2010, such expenditure would also be deductible during the same year. This provision was held to have retrospective effect by the judgement of the High Court in case of Omprakash R Chaudhary (2015 (2) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). On the basis of such statutory change and the judgement of the High Court, the assessee was, as held by the Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited reported in [2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT ], entitled to seek rectification. The Tribunal correctly granted such a relief which was denied by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the return of income, in which, it had claimed deduction of expenditure of ₹ 97.38 lacs (rounded off) towards construction and transportation charges. The Assessing Officer, while passing order of assessment dated 15.12.2009 recorded that the tax deducted at source concerning these payments was deposited in the government account only on 05.05.2007. In his opinion therefore, since the assessee failed to deposit the tax deducted at source within the time allowed under the Income Tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short], the expenditure would have to be disallowed in terms of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He accordingly, disallowed such expenditure. 3. Against the order of assessment, the assessee preferred a revision petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quested the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of the expenditure for the assessment year 2007-08 itself. The Assessing Officer having rejected such an application, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 06.08.2014 rejected such an appeal on the ground that the Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 154 read with Section 264 and such order was therefore, not appealable. Further, he opined that such order was not in tune with the order of revision passed by the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act and the Assessing Officer, therefore, committed no error. If at all, the remedy for the assessee would lie before the Tribunal. 6. Against such order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply to, inter alia, the classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputations which may be completed at any time where the assessment, reassessment or recomputatin is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in, inter alia, an order under section 254. Therefore, to the extent, an assessment, reassessment or recomputation is done to give effect to the finding or direction' contained in, inter alia, the Tribunal order, the same can be passed at any time. The Assessing Officer, therefore, shall be well within his powers to pass the appropriate orders to withdraw the deduction, if granted, in the subsequent assessment year. 7. It is this judgement of the Tribunal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
