Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 874 - ITAT KOLKATADisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS - advertisement charges - HELD THAT:- Ld AR argued that let this issue be restored back to the file of the AO to verify the fact of inclusion of the subject mentioned receipts in the income of the payees and once it is done, the assessee should not be fastened with disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the light of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 201(1) which although was introduced by the Finance Act 2012 has been held to be retrospective in operation by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Tirupati Construction [2016 (8) TMI 1310 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. Hence in the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit and appropriate to remand this issue to the file of AO for de novo adjudication in the light of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 201(1). The assessee is also at liberty to furnish additional evidences, if any, in support of his contentions. - grounds allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of remuneration/ commission - lady partners also working in another partnership firm and getting remuneration - neither disputed nor disbelieved that the said two lady partners are working partners and have working knowledge of the business in which the assessee firm was engaged - business of selling sarees & salwar suits - HELD THAT:- The only ground on which the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance is that he did not believe that the two lady partners could simultaneously work for two partnerships and draw remuneration/ commission. However there is no law which prohibits a person to work in more than one partnership firms and draw remuneration therefrom. All that Section 40(b) requires is that the remuneration should be paid to a working partner and there is no prohibition either in the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 debarring a partner to draw remuneration from more than one partnership firms. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to uphold the disallowance merely because two working partners of the assessee firm were also working partners of another firm namely M/s Lal Fashion and in that capacity derived remuneration from two firms. - grounds of appellant allowed.
|