Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1850 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTDisallowance u/s 40(1)(ia) - non deduction of TDS on payment made for job works - retrospectivity of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) - whether the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) has a retrospective effect and is applicable to the applicant for the relevant assessment year whereas the said provisions of Section 40(a)(i)? - default u/s 201 - Held that:- From legal analysis of first Proviso to Section 201(1) and second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is discernible that according to both the provisos, where the payee/resident has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by it or receivable by it, and has also paid tax on such income, the assessee would not be treated to be a person in default and presumption would arise in his favour as noted. Whether the insertion of Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with effect from Ist April 2013 will apply to assessment year 2012-13 being retrospective? - Held that:- We are in agreement with the view of the Delhi High Court in Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Limited’s case [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] holding the rationale behind the insertion of the second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and that it is merely declaratory and curative and thus, applicable retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 2005. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and going through the evidence on record found that the assessee had filed confirmation from the party that the payment made by him to M/s Jhandu Construction Company had been reflected in its return of income. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee which has been upheld by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue
|