TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G.V.N. Hari Advocate For The Department : Smt. V. Madhuvani CIT DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur, dated 21/09/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee-firm, carrying on finance business, filed its return of income by admitting total income of ₹ 3,23,580/-. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Name of the Party Interest (Rs.) 1 P Anusha, Hyderabad 90,000 2 P Uma Maheswara Rao 28,170 3 N Surekha 22,500 4 K Sailaja 37,500 5 K Sweetha 15,000 6 Ch. Chandra Sekhar 15,000 7 P V Ramana Rao 84,000 8 N Ahalya Devi 96,000 TDS was not deducted by the assessee since in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has obtained Forms No. 15G/15H from all the eight payees and submitted before the Pr. Commissioner on 07/04/2012 and were also filed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee is not under obligation to deduct TDS under section 194A of the Act. He further submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, ld. Pr. Commissioner is not correct in exercising his powers conferred under section 263 of the Act. To support his argument, he relied on the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Narasu s Spinning Mills vs. ACIT reported in (2016) 157 ITD 512 (Chennai). 7. On the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this context, the coordinate bench of the tribunal has considered the issue on merits which reads as under:- Business Expenditure-Interest, commission, brokerage etc. to a resident-Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) towards payment of interest-Non-payment of TDS- AO made disallowance of ₹ 71,016/- u/S 40(a)(ia) on ground that assessee had not made any TDS at time of payment and recipient of amount had submitted Form 15H- Since assessee was informed in advance, TDS was not made and in fact, assessee filed TDS certificate subsequently-Held, Section 40(a)(ia) clearly says that when tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
