TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used for making deposits, then such interest will be reduced from the interest received from bank deposits for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80B - Decided in the favour of assessee by way of remand Regarding addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - the assessment was concluded prior to the amendment of the provisions of s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and on the basis of existing provisions, the AO had resorted to disallow the said claim - Decided in the favour of assessee by way of remand - ITA No. 469(Bang)/2010 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2010 - P. Madhavi Devi, A. Mohan Alankamony, JJ. H. Vishnumurthy, CA for the Appellant Amrita Ranjan, Addl. CIT, for the Respondent ORDER A. Mohan Alankamony: The appeal by the Revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enience, in this common order. 5. Before venture to address to the grievances of the Revenue, it was noticed that there was delay on the part of the assessee in filing its Cross Objection to the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The assessee, in an affidavit dated: 20.8.2010, submitted that - (i) it had filed a Memorandum of Cross Objection on 4.8.2010 wherein it was mentioned the date of notice of the appeal filed by the Revenue got served on it on 5.7.2010 and, accordingly, it was under a bona fide belief that the Cross Objection was filed within 30 days; (ii) When it was brought to its reference by the office of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the notice in question was served by 29.6.2010 itself, resulting in, a delay of 5 days in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the AO when the assessment order was passed on 30.11.2007. Since facts are similar, the ratio of decision of the ITAT of AY 2003-04 is followed for this year also and the addition is deleted." 6.2. With due respects, we have perused the finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal referred supra wherein the Hon'ble Bench had, extensively quoting the various judicial pronouncements which included the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Producin Pvt. Ltd. (290 ITR 598) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 297), observed thus- "16. In respect of the (above) borrowings, there is direct nexus and interest on such borrowings is to be reduced for ascertaining the interest income whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the deletion of addition of Rs.49.68 lakhs u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the forceful submission of the Revenue was that - - the CIT (A) had erred in deleting the addition without ascertaining the relevant facts such as the dates on which the tax was deducted at source with reference to the amended provisions of s.40(a) (ia) of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005; - that as per the amended provisions of s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, the tax deducted at source (TDS) prior to 1.3.2005 had to be deposited within 31.3.2005 and only the TDS on or after 1.3.2005 can be paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The ld. A R present was duly heard. 7.1. We have duly considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority was that the payment details were already on record through tax audit report and also specific submission during the course of hearing. It was further contended that the amendment was retrospective, the effect of this provision based on the information which was already on record. It was also contended before the Ld. CIT (A) that consequent to the retrospective amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) which was done in 2008 subsequent to the conclusion of the assessment, since the tax was deposited before the due date for filing the return, the amount was allowable as a deduction even on this ground. 7.3. However, the Ld. CIT (A)'s observation was that "4.1.........What the AO did was correct so far as the position of law stood at that time. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
