TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri Akhilendra Yadav ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: Both these appeals are filed by the assessee and they are directed against consolidated order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 19/12/2012 for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. It may be mentioned here that apart from main grounds of appeal the assessee has also raised additional ground agitating the validity of reopening of the assessment. However, during the course of hearing Ld. AR did not press any grounds except Ground No. 4(b) and the fact that he did not press other grounds is mentioned on the ground of appeal itself on the date of hearing. Ground No.4 in both the appeals read as under: Ground No.4: in ITA No.2293/Mum/2013: 4.0 The Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was also given to Ld. DR. The chart read as under: SUMMARY OF LABOUR CHARGES PAID AND PAYABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 2006-07: A.Y. 2005-06: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Labour charges on which TDS is not deducted (disallowed in assessment) ₹ 1,35,05,623 Less: Labour charges Paid Rs. (65,83,283) Balance Labour charges Payable on which TDS is not Deducted ₹ 69,22,340 A.Y. 2006-07: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Labour charges on which TDS is not deducted (disallowed in assessment) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly been considered. Recently, Mumbai Tribunal has decided such issue in favour of the assessee by considering the earlier decisions. Judicial Member is one of the party to the said decision The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under: 5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. After careful consideration, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Vivil Exports P. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), we delete the disallowance. For the sake of completeness relevant observation of the Tribunal from the said decision are reproduced below: 4. Though number of grounds were urged before us in the grounds of appeal annexed to Form No. 36, at the time of hearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192. Accordingly the Chennai Bench held that section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted in respect of the amount already paid by the assessee. 5. The learned D.R., on the other hand, could not place before us any contrary judgement on this issue. Though the learned D.R. promised to file written submissions within one day, it was not filed. In other words, there is no contrary decision on this issue. 6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, without going into the other aspects, which were in fact not argued either by the assessee or by the Revenue, we hold that section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted in respect of payment already made by the end of the previous year. The AO is directed to verify the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM: HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B LOKUR HON BLE MR. KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, or the petition. Delay in filing and refilling special leave petition is condoned. Special leave petition is dismissed. Digitally signed by Rajesh Dham Date: 2014.07.02 5.2 In view of above discussion, the decision relied upon by Ld. DR would have no application and we have to accept the claim of the assessee to the extent of labour payments are made during the year under consideration and to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
