TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd Vs. CIT [ 2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] even in absence of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) had noticed that the payee had already paid the tax. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the payer / deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax We find that the issue is no more res integra and respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High court in the decision referred (supra), both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA Nos. 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13 is not found sustainable and, accordingly deleted. 7.1 Having said this, amount of Rs.99,75,000/- deducted by the AO for AY 2012-13 for allowing this sub-contractual payments pertaining to AY 2011-12 on which TDS been paid in AY 2012-13, while assessing appellant's income at Rs.6,79,36,450/- needs to be withdrawn by the AO while giving effect to this appeal order. 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR is heard, who has relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be given retrospective effect from 01.04.2005, though the legislature has given effect to the same from 01.04.2013. 3. Per contra, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd Vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) even in absence of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) had noticed that the payee had already paid the tax. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the payer / deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax. 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record. We find that the issue is no more res integra and respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High court in the decision referred (supra), both the appeals filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
