TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>ITAT grants appeal, directs deletion under section 40(a)(ia) for A.Y 2013-14, applying amendment retrospectively.</h1> <h3>M/s Neokraft Global Pvt Ltd Versus The D.C.I.T Circle – 18 (1), New Delhi</h3> M/s Neokraft Global Pvt Ltd Versus The D.C.I.T Circle – 18 (1), New Delhi - TMI Issues: Appeal against addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y 2013-14.Analysis:1. Issue of Addition u/s 40(a)(ia): The Assessing Officer disallowed the testing charges of &8377; 1,64,120/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the TDS was deposited after the due date. The assessee contended that the TDS was deposited before filing the return of income, citing an amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer rejected this claim, stating that the amendment was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.2. Decision and Legal Interpretation: The ITAT, Delhi, referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s Calcutta Export Company, which addressed the retrospective nature of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. The Supreme Court held that the amended provision should be interpreted liberally and applied retrospectively from the date of its insertion, i.e., from the Assessment Year 2005-2006. The Court emphasized that the amendment was curative in nature and should not lead to unintended consequences for the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT, following the Supreme Court's decision, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of &8377; 1,64,120/-.3. Conclusion: Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the retrospective application of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. The decision was based on the principle of avoiding unintended adverse consequences for the assessee and ensuring equitable treatment. The judgment highlights the importance of interpreting tax provisions in a manner that upholds the object and purpose of the law while safeguarding the interests of taxpayers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
