9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 (7) TMI 1246 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and decision of Neena Kual [ 2019 (5) TMI 1697 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that the amendment brought in by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 restricting the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of 30% of the expenses was made effective from 01/04/2015. But thereafter, clause 14.3. of the explanatory memorandum to Finance Bill 14 was said to be brought to effect to remove hardships faced by the assessee and thus, the said amendment was held to be clarificatory in nature and applicable retrospectively. Since the ld. D/R failed to bring any binding decision in its favour and the decision relied upon by the assessee is squarely applicable on the issue involved in the instant appeal, we are inclined to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grounds which are not correct. 3. For that the appellant craves leave to adduce, modify and or alter the grounds at or before hearing. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench at Rajkot in the case of Punabhai G. Pardava vs. ITO in ITA No. 219/RJT/2018, order dt. 08/06/2022, stated that in this decision, the amendment brought in by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2014 effective from 01/04/2015 made in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act have been held to be clarificatory in nature and, therefore, applicable retrospectively as it removes hardships caused to the assessee. Therefore, in place of 100% disallowance of expenditure, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench at Rajkot in the case of Punabhai G. Pardava (supra), wherein also similar issue came for adjudication and the Tribunal relying on various decision including the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Amruta Quarry Works vs. ITO in IT Appeal 1481 (Ahd.) of 2013, dated 19.7.2016 and decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Neena Kual vs. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1386 (Mum) of 2017, dated 21.05.2019] held that the amendment brought in by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 restricting the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of 30% of the expenses was made effective from 01/04/2015. But thereafter, clause 14.3. of the explanatory memorandum to Finance Bill 14 was said to be brought to effect to remove hard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
