|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 934 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 762
The Bombay High Court heard an appeal regarding the interpretation of section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2004-2005. The Tribunal's decision denying the deduction claimed was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. All contentions of parties are kept open for further arguments. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 761
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of application for registration under S.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Director of Income-tax(Exemption) Hyderabad rejecting the application for registration under S.12AA of the Act. The Director had called for information regarding the genuineness of the business carried out by the assessee and commencement of activity, which the assessee allegedly did not furnish. The Tribunal found that the Director did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to submit the required information before rejecting the application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Director's order and directed a fresh examination of the application, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate and comply with the Director's requests. The Director was instructed to reevaluate the registration application, issue a speaking order, and provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 22.02.2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 760
Issues involved: Appeals against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Judgment Details:
1. Appeal No. 853/Chd/2012:
- Assessee failed to furnish correction statement for invalid/missing PAN numbers, leading to penalty u/s 272B.
- Assessee's contention of filing correction statement and issuing letters not supported by evidence.
- CIT (Appeals) upheld penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 272B.
2. Appeal No. 854/Chd/2012:
- Penalty imposed for invalid/missing PAN numbers in e-TDS quarterly statement.
- Assessee's failure to provide evidence of sending letters to deductees led to confirmation of penalty by CIT (Appeals).
3. Appeal No. 855/Chd/2012:
- Penalty upheld for invalid/missing PAN numbers in e-TDS quarterly statement.
- Assessee's incomplete correction statement and lack of evidence of letter dispatch resulted in penalty confirmation by CIT (Appeals).
4. Common Ground:
- Assessee argued majority of PAN numbers were furnished, hence penalty u/s 272B unjustified.
- Rival contentions heard, record perused, and penalty of Rs. 10,000 upheld by ITAT Chandigarh.
5. Conclusion:
- Failure to comply with PAN number provisions led to penalty imposition.
- CIT (Appeals) decisions upheld, and all appeals of the assessee dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 759
Issues involved: Assessment of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08.
Assessment of Disallowance of Interest:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and trading, declared total income of Rs. 5,03,99,856/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. During scrutiny, it was observed that advances were made to subsidiary and related companies, while loans were taken incurring significant interest expenses. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) noted investments in subsidiary companies yielding minimal income, indicating diversion of interest-bearing funds. The A.O. made a disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 22,50,264/-, being 10% of the total investments and advances. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, leading to the appeal.
Grounds of Appeal:
Grounds No. 1 to 4 challenged the denial of a full opportunity to be heard by the ld. CIT(A), but were withdrawn during the hearing. Ground No. 5 contested the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 22,50,264/-.
Arguments and Decision:
The appellant's counsel argued that the shareholders' funds far exceeded the advances made without interest, citing a previous Tribunal order in the appellant's favor. The Tribunal, in the appellant's previous case, had deleted a similar disallowance based on the substantial shareholders' funds compared to the advances. The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds were available, investments were presumed to be made from those funds. As no distinguishing features were presented by the Revenue, the disallowance of interest was deleted following the precedent set in the appellant's previous case and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Consequently, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 22,50,264/- was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and deleting the disallowance of interest.
-
2013 (2) TMI 758
Addition made u/s.14A - Held that:- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd.[2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from AY 2008-2009 onwards. The provisions of Rule 8D are statutorily mandatory and any working of disallowance u/s 14A is required to be worked out as per formula provided in Rule 8D(2) only. As the appellant itself had offered disallowance u/s 14A more than the disallowance worked out under 14A AO was not justified in disallowing further expenditure u/s 14A.
-
2013 (2) TMI 757
Whether Tribunal is correct in holding that the addition has been wrongly made without appreciating the fact that the PE in India has to be treated as separate entity and the interest payable by the said PE is to be taxed in India in the hands of GE as income ? - Held YES - The question as framed is in respect of payment of interest by PE to GE when issue is interest earned by the PE from its head office. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the respondent-assessee's claim for deduction on the ground that one cannot earn income from oneself.
Whether Tribunal is correct in holding that the addition is wrongly made without appreciating the fact that the proviso to Section 36(1)(viia) states clearly that deduction of bad debts shall be limited to the amount by which such debt exceeds the balance in the provision account made u/s.36(1)(viia) ? - Held YES - instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) being instruction No.17/2008 dated 26th November, 2008 covers the issue in favour of the respondent-assessee.
Whether Tribunal is correct in holding that interest expenses claimed by the assessee is not a deduction but it is an expenditure and it is not the case of the revenue that these expenditures are not allowable in the regular course of business of the assessee without appreciating the fact that there are no provisions in the Act which allow change in computation of income by the assessee by reasons of modification of account, otherwise than by filing revised return ? - Held YES
Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that section 44C is not applicable and these expenses are allowable u/s.37(1) of the I.T. Act - Held YES - See Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [ 2003 (4) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
-
2013 (2) TMI 756
Issues Involved: Determination of whether income arising from sale and purchase of shares should be treated as business income or short term capital gain.
Summary:
Issue 1: Classification of Income
The appellant contested the treatment of short term capital gain on sale of shares as business income by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO based the classification on factors such as volume and frequency of transactions, holding period, and motive of the assessee. The AO referred to relevant case laws to support the decision.
Issue 2: Appeal before Ld. CIT(A)
The appellant appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], arguing that the nature of transactions, including holding periods and profit/loss incurred, indicated investment rather than trading. The appellant emphasized consistency in treatment of similar transactions in previous years and cited relevant court decisions to support the claim.
Issue 3: Decision of Ld. CIT(A)
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, considering factors such as interest paid on borrowed funds and IPO funding availed by the assessee. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was engaged in trading activities, leading to the assessment of income as business income.
Issue 4: Arguments before ITAT
The appellant presented arguments before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding consistency in treatment of income from share transactions. The appellant highlighted specific details of transactions and holding periods to support the claim that the income should be treated as capital gains.
Issue 5: ITAT Decision
After considering the submissions and past assessments, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant. The ITAT noted the consistency in the assessee's approach to share transactions over the years and found no material change in the facts of the case to warrant a different classification for the year under consideration. The ITAT emphasized the importance of uniformity and consistency in such cases and allowed the appeal.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues involved and the arguments presented by the parties, leading to the final decision by the ITAT.
-
2013 (2) TMI 755
Whether loan taken was utilized for acquiring fixed can be considered as application of income u/s 11 - Can depreciation be considered as application of income - can set off of excess expenditure of earlier years be allowed when there is no such claim in the return - Held that:- Acquisition of fixed assets was only for the purpose of Trust - Loan raised is never income derived from the property held under trust - Utilization of such loan will also be not an application of income derived from property held under trust - Contention of the assessee that once loan had gone into common kitty, a presumption has to be taken that money expended for acquiring capital asset had first gone out of own funds and then out of loan funds, cannot be accepted - Decided against the assessee
Held that:- While computing the income of the Trust, commercial principle had to be followed and depreciation had to be allowed - depreciation has to be considered as an application of income derived from property held under Trust - Decided in favor of assessee
Held that:- Trust was entitled to set off the amount of excess application of income of prior years against deficiency of current year - claim of the assessee ought have been entertained if such claim was found factually correct
-
2013 (2) TMI 754
Addition on account of interest claimed by the Assessee u/s. 36(1) (iii) - Held that:- It is well established proposition that when the Revenue fails to establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the funds diverted/lent, any denial of allowances of interest under Section 36[1](iii) is not permissible. In the instant case, as both the authorities have held concurrently on the basis of material available that sufficient amount of interest-free funds were available with the assessee-respondent and therefore also, there is no justification in interfering with the decision of both these authorities. Resultantly, the question of law proposed is answered accordingly.
-
2013 (2) TMI 753
Issues involved:
The judgment involves challenges to the cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04. Additionally, it addresses the quashing of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the IT Act for AY 2003-04 and dismissal of appeals by the assessee for AY 2001-02 & 2002-03.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AY 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04:
The Revenue challenged the cancellation of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of royalty payments due to non-deduction of tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) in AY 2001-02 and 2002-03, and disallowance of 75% royalty in AY 2003-04. The CIT(A) canceled the penalty citing the issue as debatable, not amounting to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, citing the assessee's claim not constituting inaccurate particulars as per the decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd.
Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147/148 - AY 2003-04:
The Revenue appealed the quashing of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 for AY 2003-04. The ITAT held that as the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and no failure to disclose material facts existed, the reassessment was time-barred. Citing relevant case laws, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Assessee's Appeals - AY 2001-02 & 2002-03:
The assessee's appeals for AY 2001-02 & 2002-03 were dismissed as the assessee failed to appear, and the notice sent was returned unserved. Following ITAT Rules and legal precedents, the appeals were dismissed, allowing the assessee to move for a recall upon providing reasons for non-furnishing of address change.
In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in canceling penalties and quashing reassessment proceedings, while dismissing the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee for various assessment years.
-
2013 (2) TMI 752
Issues involved: Interpretation of sub-section (11) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 in light of Explanation 2 and conflict arising from the introduction of sub-section (11).
Summary:
The High Court of Delhi observed that sub-section (11) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, introduced through the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011, created a conflict with Explanation 2 of the same section. The conflict stemmed from sub-section (11) being a non-obstante provision in relation to judgments, decrees, or orders of courts or tribunals, but not in relation to other provisions of the Act, including Explanation 2. This conflict prompted the court to issue notices to the concerned parties for further clarification.
The court accepted the notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1. Notices were also to be sent to respondents No.3 and 4. The court directed the filing of counter affidavits within four weeks and rejoinder affidavits within two weeks thereafter. The case was listed for further proceedings on 09.04.2013.
During the interim period, the court allowed the proceedings to continue, and the adjudication order could be issued by the adjudicating authority. However, the court specified that the said order should not be enforced until further directives were provided by the Court.
-
2013 (2) TMI 751
Disallowance of expenditure on Wills World Cup - Held that:- The entire advertisement expenses has already been allowed in the assessment year 1996-97, the same cannot be allowed in the subsequent year. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
Applicability of provisions of section 115JA to bank - Held that:- In view of the situation that the second ground of appeal which has been vehemently argued by both the parties does not emanate from the impugned order of the CIT(A), it would not be possible for the Tribunal to adjudicate the same. The issue was not raised by the assessee by following proper procedure by raising the same as additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed
There is no question of allowing depreciation on land to the assessee
Bad debts written off in respect of rural advances
-
2013 (2) TMI 750
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order partly allowing assessee's appeal u/s 143(3) for AY 2008-09 regarding disallowance of expenses claimed as paid to various employees.
Details of the judgment:
1. Background: The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in clearing and forwarding activities, claimed payments to Port employees and Docks Staff which were disallowed by the AO u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act. The entire amount of disallowance was &8377;36,14,843.
2. CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% based on tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case for previous years. Revenue appealed against this decision.
3. Tribunal's Analysis: The assessee's counsel referred to previous tribunal orders in the assessee's case for AYs 2002-03 to 2004-05 and AY 1998-99, where disallowance was restricted to 25% of the amount paid to government employees. The tribunal maintained a consistent stand on this issue.
4. Tribunal's Decision: The tribunal, noting the consistent stand on restricting disallowance to 25%, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. No distinguishing feature was presented by the Revenue to warrant a different outcome. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
5. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of expenses claimed as paid to various employees to 25% based on previous tribunal rulings in the assessee's case.
*Order pronounced on 27th February, 2013.*
-
2013 (2) TMI 749
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-Valsad regarding deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
Summary:
The Revenue's appeal was based on the denial of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act due to the absence of a factory license before commencing manufacturing activities. The assessment order for the year in question disallowed the deduction based on a similar issue in a previous assessment year. The assessee relied on a previous ITAT decision in their favor for A.Y. 2005-06, establishing eligibility for the deduction u/s 80IB. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessee's eligibility for the deduction, directing the A.O. to grant the deduction as per the Act. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld.
In conclusion, the appeal centered on the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, with the Ld. CIT(A) ruling in favor of the assessee based on precedent and directing the A.O. to grant the deduction as per the provisions of the Act.
-
2013 (2) TMI 748
Depreciation Calculation Method under Rule 5 (1A) - AO observed that in an assessment year the depreciation was allowable by following the straight line method while the assessee had claimed it on WDV method. The AO observed that there is no deviation in the facts or position in law, therefore, he disallowed the difference between the depreciation calculated under the straight line method and under WDV method. CIT had deleted the addition made by the AO
HELD THAT:- As per second proviso to rule 5(1A) the assessee may instead of depreciation specified in appendix 1A his option be allowed depreciation under sub rule read with appendix 1A on WDV basis, if such option was exercised by the assessee before the due date for furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year or for the relevant to the previous year in which the assessee begin to generate power whichever is later.
Disallowance of Commission charges - Fictitious Payee - The appellant had paid commission charges and the AO on the basis of earlier year disallowance had made the disallowance this year also on the basis of finding by AO that the payee was not in existence
HELD THAT:- Payments were made in view of agreement which was duly furnished before AO and the terms and conditions of agreement duly spelt out the services to be rendered by payee and commission to be paid to it. The concern was registered with the Sales Tax Department and was liable to pay local taxes. Assessee had discharged its onus of proving regarding genuineness of transaction, identity of payee and services rendered by the payee. Therefore, payment was for legitimate business purposes - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Disallowance of Aircraft Expenditure/ Non business Purposes - Assessee had taken air craft on lease and used it for some purpose. He claimed that such expenditure was made for business purposes. Thus, should be disallowed - HELD THAT:- Expenditure relatable to trips made for non business purposes could only be disallowed by the Department. The AO had specifically pointed out journeys undertaken by the assessee which were not for business purposes and assessee neither before the AO nor before Ld CIT(A) was able to produce any evidence to claim that air journeys were undertaken for business purposes. Thus, such expenditure can't be allowed - Decision against Assessee.
Taxability of Subsidy - Revenue or Capital in Nature? - Subsidy was received by the assessee on account of exemption from sales tax, entry tax and electricity duty. AO held the nature of subsidy as revenue on the basis that subsidy in the form of non payment of sales tax, entry tax and electricity duty were production related incentives and none of the above items tantamount to acquisition of capital assets - HELD THAT:- We find that the decision in the case of SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1997 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] fits into the facts of present case, where the basic tests to be applied for judging the character of subsidy and that test is that the character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given.
Therefore, refund of sales tax or relief of electricity charges cannot be treated as an aid to setting up of an industry of the assessee and therefore cannot be said to be of capital receipt. Thus, amount of subsidy is revenue in nature.
Export Profit u/s 80HHC - Calculation of Tax Payable u/s 115JB - Additional ground was raised by assessee in view of judgement AJANTA PHARMA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, MUMBAI [2010 (9) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT], to claim full amount of export profit u/s 80HHC
HELD THAT:- We find that Hon'ble Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. CIT, has held that provisions of section 115JB was a self contained code and consequently book profit under that section has to be calculated after allowing 100% of export profit as calculated in accordance with formula given in sub section (3) of section 80HHC. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we admit the same and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the book profit u/s 115JB after allowing 100% of export profit as calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 80HHC - Matter Restored Back.
-
2013 (2) TMI 747
Whether the expenses claimed are subjected to fringe benefit tax - Expenses like sales promotion, agents retraining, agents sales material and agents training - Held that:- Expenses incurred on printing of product brochure, forms, product booklets etc. are ordinary business expenses and cannot be said to be expenses relating to sales promotion - assessee has not filed any details of the expenses covered under sales promotion - opportunity of being heard given to the assessee - Matter Remanded back
Held that:- Customers of a company are neither the employees nor are deemed to be employees - commission or incentives, which are taxable at the hands of the individual beneficiary, cannot be subjected to FBT - expenses incurred on conference have been specifically included u/s 115WB(2) - no bifurcation/split up of the expenses has been given by the assessee - Matter Remanded back
Held that:- Agents retraining cannot be said to be ordinary business expenses - covered under clause (C) of sub-section 115WB(2) - Decided in favor of Revenue
Held that:- Agents sales material can be considered as ordinary business expenses - no details/ bifurcation of expenses has been given - Matter Remanded back
Held that:- Agents Training consisting of food and beverages etc. are covered under clause (C)&(D) of section 115WB(2) - FBT is applicable - Decided in favor of Revenue
-
2013 (2) TMI 746
Deduction of interest paid to third party - Whether the income from bank interest on FDRs is to be treated as business income or other sources income - Held that:- interest paid to third party has been allowed as deduction after application of rate of profit thus ITO committed no mistake in allowing the interest - Decided in favor of assessee
Held that:- there is a direct nexus between the interest income as well as the investment - The AO has investigated this issue and has found with reference to Tribunal order and High Court decisions that the interest amount received by the assessee is to be treated as business income on which net profit rate of 8.07% as applied to business income has to be applied to arrive at a taxable income - Hence there is no error in the assessment order and is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (2) TMI 745
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the presence of bias in the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) due to the jurisdictional Commissioner's involvement, rejection of contentions regarding appropriate remuneration of the Indian entity at arm's length, and denial of opportunity for cross-examination of individuals whose statements were used against the assessee.
Bias in DRP Panel:
The appeal raised concerns about bias in the DRP due to the presence of the jurisdictional Commissioner, leading to a request for restoration to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). Citing precedents, the learned Counsel highlighted the need to address possible bias/conflict of interest, supported by the posting order of the jurisdictional Commissioner. The objection to the presence of the jurisdictional CIT on the DRP panel formed the primary basis of the appeal.
Remuneration of Indian Entity:
The contention regarding the appropriate remuneration of the Indian entity at arm's length was raised by the assessee, emphasizing rebates/incentives paid directly to the Indian entity by vendors. The AO's rejection of these contentions without examination and the DRP's non-consideration despite objections were challenged. The need for a fresh examination by the AO on this issue was stressed, supported by documents submitted to the AO/DRP and a request for cross-examination of relevant individuals.
Cross-Examination Rights:
The denial of the opportunity for cross-examining individuals whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue was another key issue. The assessee's request for cross-examination was made but not considered, leading to objections regarding natural justice principles. The need for AO to allow cross-examination to contest/justify/accept the statements was emphasized, highlighting the foreign company's right to cross-examine individuals in such proceedings.
Decision and Directions:
After considering the contentions from both parties, the Tribunal found merit in the objections raised and decided to set aside the orders of the AO and DRP. The entire assessment was restored to the file of the AO for fresh examination, focusing on the issues of appropriate remuneration of the Indian entity and the right to cross-examination. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and allowed the submission of relevant documents. The DRP, without the jurisdictional CIT/DIT, was instructed to consider objections raised by the assessee and issue necessary directions.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the orders of the AO and DRP being set aside. The assessment procedure was restored to the file of the AO for re-examination, ensuring the rights of the assessee to present relevant documents and cross-examine individuals. The judgment aimed to address the issues raised by the assessee regarding bias, remuneration, and cross-examination, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair assessment procedures.
-
2013 (2) TMI 744
Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that: -We direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) with respect to the additions so made by Assessing Officer which were deleted by CIT(A), and for which substantial question of law has been accepted by Hon'ble High Court. Agreeing with the contentions of Mr. Shah, we do not find any merit in the order of Assessing Officer for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,
-
2013 (2) TMI 743
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition of transportation expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 31,75,516 made on account of transportation expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made payments to various sub-contractors but failed to deposit the TDS amount in the Government's Account within the prescribed time u/s 220(1) of the Act. The appellant contended that the TDS deduction was paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, citing relevant judgments. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the decisions of the Culcutta High Court and the ITAT Ahmedabad, directing the A.O. to allow the expenditure and delete the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as he provided relief to the assessee based on the precedents cited. The decision highlighted that if the TDS deduction is paid before the due date of filing the return of income, it does not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld.
............
|
9911796707
