9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral ground, does not require any adjudication. 3. In Ground No.1, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 31,34,633/- made under Section (u/s.) 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Requisite facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in the business of development, maintenance of Mahaonline portal for providing web-based services by the Government to Citizens, Government to Business and other portal services of the Government of Maharashtra. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 13.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 8,11,25,270/- under the Normal Provisions and book loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Government of Maharashtra. He submitted, an identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of TATA Consultancy Services. He submitted while deciding the issue the Coordinate Bench has held that since payments were made to Government, TDS Provisions would not get attracted. Thus, he submitted, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. He submitted, as regards the payment of Rs. 19,85,969/- to Village Level Entrepreneurs, in the year under consideration, the amount in dispute was neither paid nor credited to the payee. He submitted, when invoices were received from the concerned vendors and actual payment was made in subsequent years, assessee did comply with TDS Provisions. In this context, he drew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we find that the amounts of Rs. 43,20,000/- and Rs. 34,55,000/-, part of which have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, have actually been paid by the assessee to the Maharashtra Government. Therefore, such payment would not get covered under the TDS Provisions. In so far as payment of Rs. 19,85,969/- to Village Level Entrepreneurs is concerned, the assessee has furnished before us documentary evidence to demonstrate that in the year under consideration neither the amount in dispute was paid nor credited to the concerned vendors. The assessee has further demonstrated that as and when, the amount was paid in subsequent years, TDS provisions have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record and arises out of the assessment order, we are inclined to admit the additional ground. 11. Drawing our attention to the computation part of the assessment order, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,596/- has been disallowed twice as it has already been included in the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 12. Having considered rival submissions, we find that out of the amount of Rs. 15,596/-, the assessee has actually paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards telephone bill. Therefore, no further disallowance of the amount can be made. However, in so far as the balance amount of Rs. 10,596/- is concerned, since before us the assessee has asserted that this amount has never been paid, the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
