Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 694 - ITAT CUTTACKTDS u/s.194C and 194A - non deduction of tds - Addition u/s.40(a)(ia) - recipient of the amount have paid the due taxes - Held that:- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective in operation w.e.f 01.04.2005. Therefore, find that the order of the CIT(A) to that extent is not tenable. CIT(A) observed that no evidence was produced before him to show that the recipient of the amount have paid the due taxes by showing the amounts as their income in their return of income filed by them - restore this issue to the file of AO for examination as to whether the recipient of the amount have paid taxes on the amounts received from the assessee or not. If the AO finds that the recipients of the amount have paid due taxes on the amount received from the assessee, then no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act should not be made by the AO.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition u/s.36(1)(va) - assessee has not deposited the employee share of EPF within the due dates - Held that:- Following the decision in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd.vs DCIT (2014 (3) TMI 386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) hold that employees contribution to PF and ESI is allowable deduction to the assessee if deposited before due date of filing of return u/s.139(1)of the Act. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the contribution to PF was deposited by the assessee before due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Thus delete the disallowance of employees contribution to PF - Decided in favour of assessee
|