TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue has raised the following grounds : "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in not looking into the fact that Sri Murugan Transport is a uhiring contractor of the assessee and hence provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T.Act is applicable in the case of the payment made to Sri Murugan Transport. 4. The CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made to Naveen NDT Service and M/s. Super Quality Service are only in the nature of consultancy charges attracting the provision of Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total payment of ` 2,23,847/-. It was the submission that the learned CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance by holding that the payments had been made to the lorry owners and consequently no TDS was liable to be made as the payments did not exceed the prescribed limits. It was the submission that as the expenses had been booked under the ledger folio of M/s. Sri Murugan Transport, the TDS was liable to be made and the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 6. In reply, the learned authorised representative drew our attention to pages 3 to 8 of the paper book which showed the break up of the lorry numbers, dates and the amounts paid. It was the further submission that the evidences were before the Assessing Officer and the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was submitted by the learned DR that the assessee had paid quality control and quality inspection charges to M/s. Naveen Services as also to Super Quality Services and on the same no TDS had been done under the provisions of section 194J as the inspection job done by the said two parties were hit by the provisions of sec. 194J. 9. In reply, the learned authorised representative submitted that the inspection did not involve any manual intervention and it was through automated process involving machine operation only. It was the submission that the learned CIT(A) had followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 573. He further fairly admitted that the decision of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payments. It was the submission that the assessee had deducted TDS during the month of March, 2006 but the same was remitted only in May, 2006. Consequently, as the amounts had not been paid before the last day of the previous year, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 12. In reply, the learned authorised representative submitted that in view of the amended provisions of section 40(a)(ia) as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) should be read to be retrospective and the assessee had made the payment of the TDS before the due d....