Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s from the impugned order which includes commission 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 AR 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). No infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by Learned AO under Section 40(a)(ia) - Decided against revenue. - Shri G. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Learned DR has not been able to raise objection to such facts and submissions made by the Learned AR. After careful perusal of the entire records, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the assessee s own case in respect of Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17 in ITA Nos.2292-2294/Mum/2022, as submitted by the Learned AR. While dealing with the identical issue the Tribunal has been pleased to pass the orders in favour of the assessee with the following observation : 6. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has misread the common order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 in ITA No.7408/Mum/2012 others. A careful perusal of the order of the Tribunal would .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he relevant observations made by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court are extracted below:- 2. The issue herein is regarding disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) of the said Act for amount of Rs. 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 Rs. 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) (C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 59/- which includes commission for Rs. 1,08,00,000/- paid by assessee in the Assessment Year 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.1, this Court has observed as under: We have often .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mbay upholding the order passed by the ITAT Benches of Mumbai in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 on the identical issue. 6. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, respectfully relying upon the order passed by the Mumbai Bench in assessee s own case as narrated hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by Learned AO under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The said order is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. The Revenue appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates