Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1266 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194A - non deduction of tds on interest payment - Held that:- As per the proviso, if the deductee admits the income and pays taxes on such income, the assessee is not deemed to be assessee in default and the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not attract. Though the amendment has come into effect w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark (2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT) held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. The Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the assessee’s appeal following the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not place any other decision to controvert the reliance placed by the Ld.CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Addition towards partners’ remuneration - enhanced remuneration paid to partner - Held that:- As gone through the partnership deed and in the partnership deed with regard to payment of remuneration,there was a clause for increase/decrease of remuneration as per mutual consent before the end of the financial year. In the instant case, there were only two partners. The P&L account and the financial statement were examined by both the partners and agreed for payment of remuneration. The partnership deed also limits the remuneration as permissible u/s 40(b) of I.T.Act. Since there are only two partners in the partnership firm, and the remuneration paid is permissible as per partnership deed and the books of accounts are being verified and certified by both the partners as stated by the Ld.AR, we are in agreement with the submission made by the Ld.AR that the payment of remuneration is in accordance with the partnership deed. The Ld.AR further submitted that the managing partner has admitted the income in his hands and paid taxes. Therefore, we hold that the remuneration of ₹ 5,30,000/- is authorized by the partnership deed which required to be allowed. See CIT Vs. Asian Marketing [2012 (5) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ]. Therefore, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and allow the remuneration paid to the partners
|