TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The principle laid down in the case of Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [ 2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT] the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act to 30%. As argued by the ld. Sr. DR that at the time of hearing of miscellaneous application, the Bench was convinced that the said amendment was not retrospective and for that purpose only the earlier order of the Tribunal had been recalled. The said argument would not hold good insofar as when the miscellaneous application is heard, its prima facie case that is looked at. It is at the time of hearing of the appeal that a perusal of the various decisions and the amendments are looked into. In these circumstances, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company (supra), nowhere mentions that the Hon ble Supreme Court has treated the amendment made to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 was not retrospective in operation. It was the submission that a perusal of the said paragraph categorically showed that the Hon ble Supreme Court had in that case rejected as baseless, rather preposterous the attempt on the part of the assessee therein to seek some succour in the amendment of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. It was the submission that the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the cases of Muradul Haque, [2020] 117 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi-Trib.), Smt. Sonu Khandelwal, ITA No.597/JP/2013, dated 13.05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the assessee. It must be understood that the disallowance of 100%, by the said amendment was restricted to 30%, thus, clearly the amendment was brought in to remove the hardship caused to the assessee. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the various coordinate benches of the Tribunal on this issue, referred to supra, as also the principle laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court (Constituted by the Five Hon ble Judges) in the case of Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 249 (SC), the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act to 30%. 7. Though it has been argued by the ld. Sr. DR that at the time of hearing of miscellaneous application, the Bench was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
