9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Revenue's sole substantive ground seeks to revive Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs. 30,78,700/- made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned re-assessment framed on 01.11.2012 on account of assessee's failure in not remitting the TDS deducted as per the scheme of the Act. The Revenue's case is that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the above stated disallowance after observing as under: "(b) Ground No. 2 to 8 are descriptive with fact, case laws etc. but mainly against the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and addition of Rs. 30,78,000/-. It is contended in the ground that TDS was deducted out of such payment and paid before the due date of filing of return of income hence as per judicial pronouncement as relied on by appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T v/s Virgin creations in its judgment dt. 23/11/11 held that amendment brought by the Finance Act 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are clarificatory and retrospective hence no disallowance be made u/s 40 (a)(ia) of the Act where IDS has been paid before the due date of filling of return of income. Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad 'B' Bench in its order dt. 03/01/10 in the case of Shri Kanubhai Ramjibhai Makwana v/s ITO followed the same ratio. In the case of ITO Ward 9(4) v/s Shri Sanjay Sandalal Patel ITA No. 2826/Ahd/2011 (A.Y. 08-09) vide order dt. 23/03/201, Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad even after considering the special bench order in the case of M/s Bhartishipyard Ltd. V/s Dy. C.I.T (ITA No. 2404/Mum/2009 order dt. 12/09/11) foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 40(a)(ia) made by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospectively applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2005 thereby impliedly reversing this tribunal's special bench decision in Bharti Shipyard Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 132 ITD 53 (Mum.). Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute this legal position. We thus find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings deleting Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance in question. The Revenue's sole substantive ground as well as its main appeal fails. 5. We now come to assessee's cross objection challenging validity of reopening. Learned counsel representing assessee states very fairly that the assessee no more wishes the press the same more particularly in view of our findings on merits. We thus dismiss assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
