TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had referred to the judgment delivered in the case of Om Prakash R. Chaudhary [2015 (2) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] ]. Considering the fact that son of the assessee had paid the tax on the professional fees and respectfully following the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka (supra), we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. - ITA No.1056/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2014 - Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member Vivek Varma, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Athavale For the Respondent : Shri Sacchidanand Dubey ORDER Per Rajendra,AM Challenging the order dated 18.11.2010 of the CIT(A)-3,Mumbai the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een allowed as deduction as per second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax Act. 2) The appellant submits that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax Act should be read retrospectively. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal. 2. Assessee, an individual is a general Surgeon by profession. He filed its return of income on 30.10.2006 disclosing income of ₹ 20.36 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) finalised the assessment on 28.11.2008 determining his income at ₹ 22,70,090/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that assessee had claimed a deduction of ₹ 2.40 Lakhs under the head Fees paid to the Assistant Surgeon. On query it was explai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applicable to the case under consideration. After analysing the case of Teja Construction (supra), the FAA held that liability to deduct tax was for both i.e. for payable or paid amounts, that failure to do so would result in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Finally, the FAA upheld the order of the AO. 4. Before us, Authorised Representative (AR) argued that the son of the assessee had paid the tax on the payment received from the assessee, that for a technical default additions should not have been made/upheld. He fairly admitted that the issue of section 40(a)(ia) had not gain finality and different High Courts have taken opposite stand. He further argued that if there was a conflict of views/interpretation among the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
