TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised three elaborate grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT, who has directed the Ld. Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 based on the finding that the assessee company had not deducted TDS in accordance with the provisions of section 194C of the Act and therefore the expenditure of Rs. 33 crores claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed for the assessment year 2009-10. 3.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of investments. The assessee company had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 admitting its total income of Rs. 9,95,70,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en years. (iii) The assessee company had entered into agreement with the above said three companies giving arise to contractual obligations however tax was not deducted at source for the payments made in accordance with Section 194C of the Act, thereby attracting the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 3.3. Based on the above findings, the Ld. CIT held as follows:- "I have gone through carefully the facts available on the record and the arguments put forth by the Executive Director. From the nature of transaction, it is clear that the transaction is nothing but contractual in nature. The assessee company has not deducted the tax deductible at source as per the provisions of Section194C of the Act. As per the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso." The Ld. A.R. further argued before us stating that, he had submitted letters from the three recipients who had received the payments from the assessee wherein they had admitted to have declared the same as their income and had paid tax duly. With the above submissions the Ld. A.R. pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the order of the Ld.CIT U/s.263 is erroneous and therefore, the same may be quashed. Ld. D.R on the other hand, argued in support of the order of the Ld.CIT and prayed that the same may be sustained. 5.1. We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the materials availa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Agarwal Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.337/Agra/2013 vide order dated 29th May, 2013 has held that "the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004." In such circumstances, it cannot be construed that the Ld. Assessing Officer had passed the order without application of mind. He has considered all these facts and had consciously decided the matter. From the above facts, it appears that the Ld.CIT has passed the order U/s.263 based on difference of opinion and by reviewing the issue which was already decided by the Ld. ....