TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue's appeal against CIT(A) order partially allowed by ITAT on disallowance issue</h1> The appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Pune for A.Y. 2007-08 regarding disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) was partly allowed for ... Non deduction of TDS - disallowance - applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act - whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) by holding that TDS disallowance applies only to amounts ‘payable’ as on 31st March and not to amounts already paid during the year? - Held that: - this issue is covered by the order of ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Shri Antony D. Mundackal Vs. ACIT [2013 (12) TMI 67 - ITAT COCHIN], where it was held that sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4,2013 is clarificatory in nature and hence the benefit of the same should be applied retrospectively - appeal restored on preliminary issue for fresh adjudication. Issues:1. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - Applicability to amounts already paid during the year.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Pune, for A.Y. 2007-08. The main issue raised was whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) by holding that TDS disallowance applies only to amounts 'payable' as on 31st March and not to amounts already paid during the year. The Authorized Representative pointed out that a similar issue was addressed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench in a previous case. The ITAT observed that the second proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, might have retrospective applicability. The ITAT set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for further examination, indicating that the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.The ITAT noted that nothing contrary was presented on behalf of the revenue, and since the facts were similar to the previous case, the matter was also set aside to the Assessing Officer based on the legal decision mentioned earlier. The ITAT refrained from commenting on the merit of the issue at hand, as the issue was being restored to the assessing officer for further review. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment was pronounced on January 15, 2014, in an open court session.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
