TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 being retrospective in nature, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made if the corresponding TDS amount is paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return of income for the relevant year. In the present case, the TDS amount was duly paid by the assessee into the Government account on 31.05.2007 and 29.10.2007 i.e., before the due date of filing of return of income for the year under consideration and this being the undisputed position, we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia). - Decided against revenue. - ITA.No.470/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2015 - Shri P.M Jagtap and Shri Saktijit Dey, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the amount of ₹ 96,39,767 paid by the assessee to subcontractors in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 17.12.2009. 3. Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing the disallowance made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia). During the course of appeal proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the following submissions were made by the assessee in writing in support of its stand on this issue. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of executing civil works, filed its return of income electronically on 15-112007, admitting total income of ₹ 13,02,069/-. The case was se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work); on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, [has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (J) of section 139:J [Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted during the previous year but paid after the due date specified in sub-section (I) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid.] A bare reading of the above provision clearly states that the disallowance will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in ITA No. 302 of 2011 GA 3200/2011 decided on 23.11.2011, held as follows: We have heard Mr. Nizamuddin and gone through the impugned judgment and order. We have also examined the point formulated for which the present appeal is sought to be admitted. It is argued by Mr. Nizamuddin that this court needs to take decision as to whether section 40(A)(ia) is having retrospective operation or not. The learned Tribunal on fact found that the assessee had deducted tax at source from the paid charges between the period April 1, 2005 and April 28, 2006 and the same were paid by the assessee in July and August 2006, i.e. well before the due date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the AD. Considering the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court several Appellate Tribunals including the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad and Hon'ble ITAT Vizag Benches have held that the amended provision is having retrospective effect. In a recent decision in the case of the DCIT Central Circle-l, Hyderabad vs. M/s IVRCL Infrastructures Projects Ltd, Hyderabad in ITA. No.1220/Hyd/2013 Dated 20.12.2013, the Hon'ble A Bench Hyderabad has held that the provisions are retrospective in nature. The Hon'ble Bench has considered all its earlier decisions and also the Bombay Special Bench decision and also the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision, while reiterating the retrospective nature of the provision. Copy of the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income for the year under consideration, the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of payments made to sub-contractors was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by the Learned Representatives of both the sides, the issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations (supra) as well as the various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as cited on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
