9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct') vide his order dated 20-12-2011 for assessment year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The first issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of expenditure of payment to sub-contractor by invoking the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS for short). For which, Revenue has raised following two effective grounds:- "i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Learned CIT(A)-XXXIII, Kol, has erred in deleting the disallowances of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the premise that the decision of the honourable Calcutta High Court inn the case of CIT v. Virgin Creations, sanctions retrospective application of the amended ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e para-4.2 by observing as under:- "4.2 A the time of hearing the appellant was asked to produce details regarding date of deposit of tax deducted at source on various contractual payments. The appellant has provided copy of TDS return and challans for the said payment. It was informed that the same were produced before the assessing officer also. On going through the same, it is seen that all the deposits of TDS have been made prior to the due date of filing return of income. The proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as it existed prior to amendment by Finance Act 2010 was as under:- 'Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year or has been deducted - (A) During the last month of the previous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of jurisdictional High Court, I hold that since the appellant has deducted and deposited tax on contractual payments under consideration before the due date of filing of return of income, disallowance us. 40(a)(ia) is not warranted. The disallowance of ₹ 58,00,231/- is accordingly deleted." We find that CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by relying the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Virgin Creations (supra). We find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 5. Coming to second issue of Revenue's appeal, which is against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Puja subscription of ₹ 3,300/-. 6 We have heard rival submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
