Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether crushing charges paid for job work were disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 notwithstanding the assessee's contention that the expenditure fell under section 28 and that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was confined only to amounts remaining payable at year-end.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the computation provisions for business income must be read as an integrated scheme and that section 40 opens with a non obstante clause overriding sections 30 to 38. It rejected the contention that section 28 could be treated as a stand-alone provision insulating the expenditure from disallowance. The Tribunal further held that section 40(a)(ia) is not confined to amounts shown as payable on the balance-sheet date, and that the word "payable" cannot be read to exclude amounts already paid during the year where tax was deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B but was not deducted. In applying this view, the Tribunal also held that the majority view in Merilyn Shipping was not acceptable and that the statutory disallowance operated on the full expenditure on which TDS was required.
Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was upheld and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 40(a)(ia) applies to expenditure on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B during the relevant year, and the disallowance is not restricted to amounts outstanding as payable at the year end.