TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from the order of CIT(A)-II, Baroda, order dated 30.07.2008 for assessment year 2005-06. The ground of appeal is revolving around confirming disallowance of ₹ 66,12,078/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194(c) on account of carting expenses incurred by the appellant. 2. The appellant had claimed carting expenses of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rters as sub contract. The assessee is not a commission agent because he had paid ₹ 66,12,078 directly to the sub contractors. The assessee has total carting charges from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 was ₹ 37,42,885/-. Therefore, it was held by the ld. CIT(A) that TDS was payable by 07th of April, 2005. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. 4. Now the appellant is before us. The ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing month. The Co-ordinate B Bench, Ahmadabad, relied upon in case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations (Appeal No.302 of 2007 [GA No.3200/2011] order dated 23/11/2011) wherein Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal on the basis of that appellant had paid the TDS in Government account on or before the date of filing the return of income for the year A.Y. 05-06. The Co-ordinate B Bench, also relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
