TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Ground nos. 1 to 5. We have heard the parties. 3. The assessee company is engaged in Manufacture and sale of sheet metal pressing parts of assemblies in the automotive sector to OEM customer. The assessee has taken premises on rent from it s sister company for the said purpose. The assessee also entered into leave and license agreement for the usage of facility from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2008 at an agreed amount of ₹ 16,67,000/- per month. The said agreement was executed before the year end i.e. 31st March, 2008 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has deducted tax in the last month of the relevant previous year i.e. in the month of March, 2008 and deposited the said tax before the due date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year but is deposited before the last day of previous year then it will be allowed as deduction. Therefore, the conditions for allowability of the deduct ion is prescribed under section 40(a) (ia) itself and provisions of Chapter -XVII and section 194C under chapter XVIIB at that relevant point of time are relevant only for the purposes of ascertaining the deducibility of the tax on the payment . Once, the nature of payment is falling under the provisions of chapter -XVII /VIIB then the disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) shall be as per the condition as provided under this section itself. The proviso to section 40(a) (ia) makes it further clear that even in the case when the tax has been deductible as per the provisions of Chapter-XVII but deducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax in the last month of the previous year i.e March 2005 and deposited the same before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) then it is covered under clause A of section 40(a)(ia). Therefore when the assessee's case covered under the main provisions of existing law then we need not to go to the issue of prospective or retrospective effect of the amendment in the provisions by the Finance Act, 2010. As regards the decision relied upon by the learned DR when the proviso to section 40(a) (ia) is not contrary to the main section/enactment then the said decision will not help the case of the revenue. Even otherwise when the case of the assessee falls under the main provisions of section 40(a) (ia) then the said decision relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought to tax the said amount in the A.Y. 2008-09. 7. The assessee challenged the addition before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sasson 26 ITR 27 as well as decision of the ITAT Pune in the case of Dana India Private Limited ITA No. 375/PN/2009 order dated 09-02-2011. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the negotiations carried out by the assessee with TATA Motors for obtaining the price increase to mitigate incremental cost was approved only on 27th August, 2008 which falls in A.Y. 2009-10 and therefore the accrual income have earned is rightly offered to tax in A.Y. 2009-10. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receivable. It is difficult to say that this distinction has been throughout maintained in the Act and perhaps the two words seem to denote the same idea or ideas very similar, and the difference only lies in this that one is more appropriate than the other when applied to particular cases. It is clear, however, as pointed out by Fry, L.J. in Colquhoun v. Brooks [this part of the decision not having been affected by the reversal of the decision by the House of Lords] that both the words are used in contradistinction to the word receive and indicate a right to receive. They represent a state anterior to the point of time when the income becomes receivable and connote a character of the income which is more or less inchoate. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
