TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Nashik dated 20/07/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07. During the proceedings Ld. AR fairly mentioned that the ground no. 1 2 are superfluous and therefore, it is not pressed. On considering the same, we proceed to dismiss the same as not pressed. Further, remains only one ground for adjudication and it is reproduced as under:- 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel, these provisions are applicable only to the payments still pending payable to the parties in view of the language of the provisions. Since the amounts are already paid, considering the decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 123 TTJ (Jp) 888, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are inapplicable to the payments already paid. The said decision was adopted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In this background it was submitted that in assessee s case the amount in question has been paid so provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) are not applicable for the reasons that was applied only when amount is payable. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge. On behalf of Revenue the facts being similar so following same reasoning we are not inclined to the concur with the CIT(A) who has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
