9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at as and when, the amount was paid in subsequent years, TDS provisions have been fully complied with. In so far as the amount alleged to have been paid towards various expenses/outsourcing of cost DOP. The assessee has demonstrated before us that though the provision was made for the amount in dispute, however, it was never paid or credited. On the contrary, the provision made was subsequently reversed. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the aforesaid factual position. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in holding that the payments made do not attract the TDS provisions in the year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unsustainable. Non ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 13.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 8,11,25,270/- under the Normal Provisions and book loss of Rs. 6,79,22,328/- u/s.115JB of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, while verifying the details of various expenditures debited to the P L account, observed that certain amount has been paid by the assessee during the year without deducting tax at source, though, such payments are subject to TDS provisions. The details of such expenses are as under: Sr. Particulars Vendor Name Amount 1. Setu Maharashtra Government of Maharashtra 4,320,000 2. UID-Commission VLE (Village Level Enterpreneurs) 1,985,969 3. Project Expense-Outsourcing Cost DOP Unity Telecom Infrastructur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , assessee did comply with TDS Provisions. In this context, he drew our attention to the sample copies of TDS Certificates issued in Form No. 16A. In so far as alleged payment of Rs. 6,72,210/- towards project expenses-outsourcing cost DOP, he submitted, the amount was never paid as the provision created was reversed subsequently. Therefore, there was no question of deducting tax at source. So far as payment of other expenses of Rs. 15,596/- is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the amount is aggregate of three payments alleged to have been made by the assessee without deduction of tax. Explaining further, he submitted that actual payment made towards repairs and maintenance was to the extent of Rs. 1,37,147/- on which the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount was paid in subsequent years, TDS provisions have been fully complied with. In so far as the amount of Rs. 6,72,200/- alleged to have been paid towards various expenses/outsourcing of cost DOP. The assessee has demonstrated before us that though the provision was made for the amount in dispute, however, it was never paid or credited. On the contrary, the provision made was subsequently reversed. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the aforesaid factual position. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in holding that the payments made do not attract the TDS provisions in the year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unsustainable. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
