Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 753 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 40(a)(ia) - no deduction of Tax (TDS) on full labour charges - retrospectivity - Held that:- The amendment to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act whereby a second proviso was inserted in sub-clause (ia) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013. The provisions are intended to remove hardship. We are of the view that the hardship in such an event would be taxing an Assessee on a higher income in one year and taxing him on lower income in a subsequent year. To the extent the Assessee is made to pay tax on a higher income in one year, there would still be hardship. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) Pvt.Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has taken the view that the insertion of the second proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act is retrospective and will apply from 1.4.2005. Thus the alternative prayer of the learned counsel for the Assessee to remand the issued to the AO for verification as to whether payees have included the receipts from the Assessee in their returns of income in terms of the decisions referred to above is accepted. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. Undisclosed purchases - assessee submitted that only the profit element embodies in these purchases should be brought to tax and not the unrecorded value of purchases - Held that:- CIT(A) correctly held that the above arguments can apply only in case where there are regular unaccounted purchases and sales. He held that in the case of the assessee the entire sum of ₹ 5,97,436/- have been paid out of the books and therefore the assessee had to explain the source of funds from which these purchases were made. Since the source was not explained the entire sum is liable to be taxed. - Decided against assessee
|