TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn, followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cements Ltd. [ 2007 (3) TMI 346 - SC ORDER] the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) do not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the Revenue (for the A.Y. 2010-2011) is dismissed. D isallowance by applying the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) - Addition set aside by CIT(A) on the ground that the said Section applies only in the case of amount payable and not in respect of the amount already paid - HELD THAT:- Admittedly identical issue was decided by the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, in number of cases, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the light of observations of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court [in the case of CITII, Hyderabad vs., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which reads as under : 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,60,92,487 made by the A.O. towards disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. D.R. strongly relied upon the order passed by the A.O. whereas the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee placed before us several case law to submit that the issues stand squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and thus supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In appeal for the A.Y. 2010-2011 the first issue is with regard to the deletion of the addition of ₹ 10,11,130 referrable to delayed payment to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and hold that the Ld. CIT(A) having set aside the disallowance by following the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court which inturn, followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cements Ltd., (supra) the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) do not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the Revenue (for the A.Y. 2010-2011) is dismissed. 5. Ground Nos. 3 for the A.Y. 2010-2011 and the only ground urged in the appeal for the A.Y. 2011-2012 is with regard to the disallowance made by the A.O. by applying the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the said Section applies only in the case of amount payable and not in respect of the amount already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken a view on the issue in favour of the assessee in consonance with the view taken by the ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench in the case of Merylin Shipping and Transport (supra), and the view taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was impliedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing an SLP sought by the Revenue, and thus the view taken by the ITAT Special Bench Visakhapatnam deserves to be followed. (a) Decision of Hyderabad Bench A of the Tribunal in Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. Hyderabad V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Incometax Circle 16(2), Hyderabad (ITA Nos.676/Hyd/2009 411/Hyd/2010 dated 7.1.2015) (b) Decision of Mumbai Bench A of the Tribunal in M/s. Arcadia Share Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai V/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
