9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) ? - HELD THAT:- We find that the commission paid to the CMD has been shown as part of salary in Form-16 for Assessment Year 2010-2011. Total salary paid for the Financial Year 2009-2010 as it appears from the impugned order is ₹ 1,72,15,959/- which includes commission for ₹ 1,08,00,000/- paid by assessee in the Assessment Year in question. Section 192 of the said Act, unlike other TDS provisions require deduction of tax at source under the head Salary only at the time of payment and not otherwise. We also find that the quantum of accrual of expenses is not disputed by Revenue and Shri Sharma also stated the same. Since Shri Sharma had in fairness stated that the quantum or accrual of exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) of the said Act for amount of ₹ 1,08,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer had noted that Respondent had made a provision for commission for the Chairman and the Managing Director (CMD) of the Company for ₹ 1,08,00,000/- at the year end but not deducted TDS under Section 194H of the said Act. The commission was paid to the CMD in the subsequent year, i.e., during the Assessment Year 2010-2011 after deducting TDS. According to Shri Sharma commission provision calls for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) in the impugned Assessment Year. 3. Before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)), respondent had contended that CMD was full time employee of the company and hence this payment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear in question. 7. Section 192 of the said Act, unlike other TDS provisions require deduction of tax at source under the head Salary only at the time of payment and not otherwise. We also find that the quantum of accrual of expenses is not disputed by Revenue and Shri Sharma also stated the same. Since Shri Sharma had in fairness stated that the quantum or accrual of expenses is not disputed, there cannot be any perversity in the order passed by CIT(A) or by ITAT in concurring with the findings of CIT (A). 8. Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 33 ITR 681, this Court has observed as under: We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
