Short deduction of tax does not trigger section 40(a)(ia) where conflicting High Court views favour the assessee.

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was held unwarranted where the dispute was confined to short deduction of tax and not total non-deduction. Following its earlier coordinate bench rulings in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal applied the view favourable to the assessee because there was no binding jurisdictional High Court ruling and the non-jurisdictional High Court authorities were conflicting. The deletion of the disallowance was therefore sustained and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified where tax was deducted, if at all, under a different provision and the controversy was only as to short deduction or applicability of section 194J.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the same controversy had already been decided in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following its earlier coordinate bench decisions, it accepted the view that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply where the dispute is one of short deduction of tax. It also followed the settled approach that, where there are conflicting High Court views and no binding jurisdictional decision on the point, the view favourable to the assessee is to be adopted.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable on the facts of the case and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the first appellate authority deleting the disallowance was sustained and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the issue is only short deduction of tax, and conflicting non-jurisdictional High Court views exist, the interpretation favourable to the assessee is to be applied and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted.

---