9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to other persons in the list are concerned, we find the payments to be in excess of ₹ 10000/- each. We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.H. International Vs. ITO [ 2019 (5) TMI 616 - ITAT DELHI] has held that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act be restricted to 30% of the expenses paid as against 100% because amended provision is curative in nature and the provisions should be applied retrospectively. - Appeal filed by the assessee is part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,747/-. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts on followings a) Not providing copy of the Assessing officer remand report to the Assessee for rebuttal and alleging that not served on Assessee address when earlier notices were duly served on same address and further Ld CIT (A) also sent the notices by e-mail but have not made it possible in case of remand report to send by e-mail. b) Holding, that various notices alleged to have been sent to Assessee by ITO were not at all delivered in remand proceedings, Whereas AR of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessee before CIT(A), the action of disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now before us. 7. Before us the Ld. AR pointed to the person-wise details of the payment of commission which is placed at 5 of the paper book. Pointing to the aforesaid details, she submitted that out of the total payment to 21 persons, the payment of the persons at Sr. No. 17, 18, 19 and 20 are less than ₹ 10,000 each and therefore as per the provisions of section 194H, the assessee was not required to deduct any TDS on such payments and therefore no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was called for. With respect to the payments to other parties of the list, she submitted that the disallowance of expenses on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reveals that out of the total commission of ₹ 25,24,747/- which has been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia), includes the amounts paid to Anuj Kumar, Surya Kumar, Mukesh Tyagi and Krishna Dayal which individually are below ₹ 10,000/- each and therefore we find force in the argument of the Ld AR that on those payments assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the Act. We therefore hold that the same cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We accordingly direct its deletion. 11. As far as the amounts paid to other persons in the list are concerned, we find the payments to be in excess of ₹ 10000/- each. We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Various b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
