TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed (Partly) the addition made by ITO U/s.40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 to the tune of ₹ 9,68,087/-. It is submitted and prayed that the amount of TDS payable as per Sec.94C of the IT Act, 1961 have already been deducted and paid on 25-5-2005. 2. At the outset, ld.AR has informed that the correct amount should be ₹ 20,02,500/- instead of the amount mentioned in the ground. Ld.AR has therefore pleaded to correct the amount noted in the grounds of appeal. 3. While framing the assessment u/s.143(3) vide order dated 29.11.2007, it was observed by the AO that certain payments have been made to sub-contractors amounting to ₹ 31,84,737/- without deduction of tax at source, hence contravening the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the ground on this point of the appellant is dismissed. However, TDS on payments of ₹ 9,68,087 made in March, 2005 was deposited in government account on 25.5.05, and as per amendment brought in section 40a(ia) vide Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005, the appellant gets relief of ₹ 9,68,087. 5. Having head the submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that now this issue is directly covered by a decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court pronounced in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations (Appeal No.302 of 2007 [GA No.3200/2011] order dated 23/11/2011), wherein it was held as under:- The Court: We have herd Mr.Nizamuddin and gone through the impugned judgment and order. We have als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgin Creators in GA No.3200/2011 dated 23-11-2011 against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.2404/Mum/2009 in order dated 12-09-2011 has taken a view that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply accordingly. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creators (supra) the order of Ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable. Hence, this ground of assessee s appeal is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 3,69,568/- as made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Respectfully following the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
