2012 (2) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the assessee fails to deduct TDS from the payments made to contractors u/s. 194C of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following ground: "That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 22,39,414/- on account of section 40(a)(ia)." 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts are that the assessee is a contractor and running his business through two proprietary concerns namely, M/s. Nesha Construction and M/s. New Nesha Construction. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that the payments were made on account of labour charges for the months of April 2006 to May, 2007 but TDS was deducted for the entire labour payments in the month of March, 2007 and also paid before due dates specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act, we find no infirmity in the order as the present appeal is for Assessment Year 2007-08 and, therefore, will be governed by the amended provisions as per Finance Act, 2005. 4. Even otherwise, this issue is now covered by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT V Virgin Creations in ITAT No.302 of 2011, GA No. 3200/2011 dated 23.11.2011, wherein even amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 in secti....