TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the case in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31/10/2006 declaring an income of Rs. 9,93,911/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that as per income and expenditure statement, the assessee received Rs. 2,61,37,745/- as truck hire income and claimed Rs. 2,48,10,067/- as truck hire expenses. The A.O. asked the assessee to produce following details, documents and explanation: 1. As per provisions of section. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act TDS is required to be deposited into Govt. account as detailed below:- a. in a case where the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubject matter of litigation in many cases at that time so to avoid litigation and to buy piece the party was advised for such journal entry and accordingly payment was made. The payment was made alongwith interest on 07/04/2008. As per section. 40a(ia)(A), if tax is deducted during the last month of the previous year and paid on or before the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1), then such sum shall be allowed as deduction. In cases where tax is deducted other than the last month of the previous year but is deposited before the last day of the previous year, then it will be allowed as deduction. Therefore, the condition for allowability of deduction are prescribed u/s 40(a)(ia) itself and chapter XVII and Section 194C are not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cola Beverages Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). 5. The A.O. was not satisfied from the submissions of the assessee and held that the payments of Rs. 2,42,50,582/- were liable for TDS (as the assessee himself deducted TDS on those payments) and that the TDS amount on these payments, which were paid up to February, 2008 should have been deposited before 31/3/2008. He, therefore made the addition of Rs. 2,42,50,582/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee deducted the tax of Rs. 2,75,604/- on the payments of Rs. 2,42,50,582/- on 31st March, 2008 and deposited on 07th April, 2008. No disallowance was called for. Reliance was placed on the following cases. 1. Kanub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....005. Similar view has been held in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in order dated 23/11/2011. Based on the same, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shri Piyus C. Mehta Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2009 in order dated 11/09/2011 has held as under: " In view of the above, we hold following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that amendment to the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 01.4.2005. Consequently, any payment of tax deducted at source during previous years relevant to and from A.Y. 2005-06 can be made to the Government on or before the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. If payments are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the order in appeal No. 370/IT/UDR/2008-09 dated 29/06/2012 for the assessment year 2006-07 and the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) has been deleted. The reasons given in this order on above issues are applicable in this year also and therefore the disallowance of Rs. 2,42,50,582/- is not tenable and the same is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." Now the department is in appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide order dated 01/10/2012 of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Nem Chand Jain for the assessment year 2005-06. Copy of the said order was furnished. 9. In his rival submissions, the Lea....