9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order of the ld. ld. CIT(A) -1, Jaipur dated 08-09-2011 for the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the Revenue has raised the solitary ground as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,17,38,024/- made by the AO on account of disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 even t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A). 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that his case is squarely covered by the decision Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (2013) 90 DTR 26 (Cal.). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Annexure A dated 16-12-2010 2. Out of the work allocated to the assessee company as per Sr.No.(i), consultancy work amounting to ₹ 2,17,38,024/- was given on subcontract to the three parties as discussed above. 3. As consultancy services are covered u/s 194J of the I.T. Act, hence, the assessee company was required to deduct tax at source @ 10% which the assessee company has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disallowance made of ₹ 1,83,52,091/- + ₹ 20,16,549 = ₹ 2,03,68,640/- u/s 40(a)(ia) is directed to be deleted. 4.6 In the case of payments made to M/s. LEA Associates South Asia (P) Ltd. for consultancy services of ₹ 13,25,000/-, it is seen that the assessee has deducted tax u/s 194J @ 10%. Therefore, there is no justification in disallowing this amount u/s 40(a)(ia). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions are satisfied then such payment can be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act but where tax is deducted by the assessee, even under bona fide wrong impression, under wrong provisions of TDS, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked. Hence, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
