TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of provision mandates. However, in the present case the CIT(A) not at all verified whether the recipients of the royalty have declared the same in their respective returns of income and paid tax thereon before deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, we remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to call for remand report from the A.O. to verify whether the recipients have declared the royalty in their respective returns and paid tax thereon, and decide the same accordingly. Assessee's appeal allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.46/Coch/2018, ITA No.47/Coch/2018, ITA No.48/Coch/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011-2012 72,00,000 2012-2013 2,75,75,702 3.1 According to the Assessing Officer, the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2013 (assessment year 2013-2014) only, hence, no application for the years under consideration. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by placing reliance on the following judgments (i) Punjab Goods Transport (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2017) Tax Pub (DT) 0116 (Kol.Tri.). (ii) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) (P) Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) (iii) ITO v. Dr.Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 52 Taxman.com 420 (Delhi-Trib.) (iv) CIT v. Rajinder Kumar (2013) Tax p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. (supra) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that amended provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act should be interpreted liberally and equitably and should be applied retrospectively from the date when section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act was inserted, so that the assessee could not suffer intended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of provision mandates. However, in the present case the CIT(A) not at all verified whether the recipients of the royalty have declared the same in their respective returns of income and paid tax thereon before deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, we re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
