TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax (Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the addition. Our view is supported by the insertion of the second proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013 wherein held that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 61/PNJ/2015 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deduction of ₹ 64,00,659/-. 4. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance of ₹ 46,82,700/- by observing as under:- 5.4 I have gone through the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. The A.O. has disallowed claim of interest expenses, because the assessee did not deduct tax at source. Interest amounting to ₹ 58,70,339/- was paid to M/s.L T Finance, whereas ₹ 5,30,320/- was paid to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The appellant stated that TDS on interest was introduced from that year itself. The appellant had availed of loan from M/s. L T Finance and had given them post dated cheques inclusive of interest components, prior to the changes made in the TDS provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovt. body, therefore TDS provisions shall not be applicable in this case. I do not agree with the contention of the appellant. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a public sector undertaking, but not a Govt. body, which is exempt from TDS provisions. In view of this, disallowance of ₹ 5,30,320/- is hereby confirmed. In the result, disallowance to the extent of ₹ 17,17,959/- is confirmed and ₹ 46,82,700 is deleted. This ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. 5. The Departmental Representative supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. The Authorized Representative of the assessee supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. We find that the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
