Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 837 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - scope of amendment - whether the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) would have retrospective effect? - HELD THAT:- Matter is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High court in case of PCIT v/s Perfect Circle India Pvt.Ltd.[2019 (1) TMI 1532 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held this proviso as beneficial to the assessee and curative in nature. The leading judgment on this point is in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not a penalty and insertion of second proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and would have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd Vs. CIT [2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] even in absence of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) had noticed that the payee had already paid the tax. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the payer / deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax We find that the issue is no more res integra and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the decision referred (supra), both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
|