9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Choudhary Transport Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [ 2020 (8) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT ] What was earlier held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company [ 2018 (5) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT ] the Supreme Court, considering the effect of amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia), observed that the amendment as brought about by Finance Act, 2010 was retrospective in operation, being curative in nature and hence the same would become applicable from the date of insertion of the provision of sub-clause (ia) of Section 40 (a) of the Act. The Supreme Court while examining the issue of law and taking such view held that insofar as the amendment brought about to Section 40 (a) (ia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - G. S. KULKARNI SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w. Ms. Leedia Panicker. For the Respondent : Mr. Dharmesh Shah a/w. Mr. Dhaval Shah. ORAL JUDGMENT: (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) 1. This appeal of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) challenges an Order dated 24th May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( Tribunal ), whereby the Respondent-Assessee s Appeal against an Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT-A ) has been allowed, thereby granting to the Respondent-Assesses benefit under Section 40 (a) (ia) as amended by the Finance Act, 2014. The effect being that the Tribunal has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the expiry of assessment year 2010-11 as per Section 200 (1) of the Act. Hence, applying the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia), the expenses claimed by the assessee were being disallowed and added back to the assessee s total income. The Assessing Officer recorded that considering the contract and professional expenses, the expenses of Rs.7,86,16,246/- were disallowed and added the same to the assessee s income. He further observed that however the assessee had made the payment in the subsequent year and that such expenses could be allowed in the year in which the amounts were deposited into the Governments account. The Assessing Officer also recorded that as in this regard the tax audit report was silent and although late payment of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and orders of the Tribunal in M/s. Amruta Quarry Works Vs. Income-tax Officer, Sabarkantha. The assessee contended that the amendment to section 40 (a) was retrospective in nature and that the payee had offered the sum received from the assessee for taxation and hence the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. On the other hand, the Department Representative (DR) stated that amendment to the said provision was prospective and in this context, the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2015 63 Taxman 99 (Kerala) was relied before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee also argued that the amendment to Section 40 (a) (ia) with effect from 01.04.2015 was introduced, to reduce hardship caused to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ia), not only, as it stood prior to its amendment as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, but also by the subsequent amendment to the said provisions by Finance Act 2010 and Finance Act, 2014 had fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC). One of the question which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the context of Section 40 (a) of the Act was as follows:- As to whether sub-clause (ia) of section 40 (a) of the Act, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from April 1, 2005 is applicable only from the financial year 2005-06 and, hence, is not applicable to the present case relating to the financial year 2004-05; a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant observations of the Supreme is required to be noted, which reads thus: 19.5 A bare look at the extraction aforesaid makes it clear that what this Court has held as regards retrospective operation is that the amendment of the year 2010, being curative in nature, would be applicable from the date of insertion of the provision in question, i.e., sub-clause (ia) of section 40 (a) of the Act. This being the position, it is difficult to find any substance in the argument that the principles adopted by this court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra) dealing with curative amendment, relating more to the procedural aspects concerning deposit of the deducted TDS, be applied to the amendment of the substantive provision by the Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
