9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) by the ACIT, Circle, Karnal and the Appellate order passed u/s 250(6) by the CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon is against Law and facts and is challenged on the following grounds:- 1. That the ACIT, Karnal grossly erred in disallowing an amount of Rs. 6,53,532/- paid as interest to GE Money Finance (P) Ltd. on loan taken from them. The disallowance of this business expenditure was made on pretext of TDS not deducted on this interest amount. The assesse submitted detailed submissions in this regard alongwith various judgments supporting the assesse, but those were not considered by the Assessing Officer. 2. That the Learned CIT (A)-2, Gurgaon also erred in confirming the above disallowance/addition and rejecting the appeal of the appellant on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fault in respect of such tax, if such recipient -i) has furnished his return of income under section 139. ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed. The assessee's plea to treat second proviso to Section 201 of I.T. Act (inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012) as having retrospective effect was rejected by the AO, by holding as under: "7. Regarding retrospective effect to proviso to section 201 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012, it is clearly written about the date from which effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d M/s G.E. Money Finance Pvt. Ltd. He further contended that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act should be given retrospective effect and the assessee should be allowed its benefit for this Assessment Year, i.e. for 2011-12, although, it is inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012. In support of his contention, the Ld. Counsel for assessee relied on order dated 19.02.2016 of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Hindustan Plywood Company vs. ITO (ITA No. 145/Del/2014); order dated 29.05.2013, ITAT Agra Bench, in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No. 337/Agra/2013); and order dated 26.08.2015, High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (ITA 160/2015, 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso. The question before us, is whether second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is prospective in application or is to be applied retrospectively. On the aforesaid question before us, we have the benefit of guidance from the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) in which the Hon'ble High Court held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Revenue's Special Leave Petition against this order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd. 242 Taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
