9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt (2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) and M/s Solutions Infosystems (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2013 (12) TMI 1531 - ITAT DELHI] CIT (A) held that Section 40(a)(ia) has no application in respect of short deduction of tax. The finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is based on binding precedents, unassailable and, therefore, we confirm the same. Insofar as the observations of the Ld. CIT (A) as to the deductibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92,46,742/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter called the Act ). 2. Briefly stated facts are that during the scrutiny assessment of the return of income filed by the assessee for the AY 2011-12, AO found that the assessee claimed a sum of ₹ 1,15,58,428/- as Allocable Capex Cost which means the cost of seats blocked by each business unit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A) that the amount in question was payment for use of land/building requiring the deduction of tax at 10%, the assessee filed the cross objections. 4. It is the argument of the Ld. DR that AO was right in his observations that whatever may be the nomenclature of the payment, ultimately the issue boils down to the payment for utilization of seats/workstations which cannot be separated from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is based on binding precedents, unassailable and, therefore, we confirm the same. Insofar as the observations of the Ld. CIT (A) as to the deductibility of tax at 10%, the assessee is at liberty to put forth their contentions before the AO (TDS) in appropriate proceedings. With this view of the matter, we dismissed the appeal and cross objection. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
