TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of the assessment order dated 28.11.2011 in respect of the assessment year 2009-10. 2. First of all, after hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that the question framed in the order dated 21.09.2016 needs to be re-framed as under: "Whether section 40 (a) (ia) is applicable only on the amount payable and not on the amount actually paid.?" 3. The brief facts are that the respondent-assessee made payments in respect of dyeing, printing, embroidery, finishing and bleaching charges. Deductions were claimed in respect thereof to the extent of Rs. 6,04,40,918/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said payment on account of default on the part of the assessee in not deducting TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) in terms of Section 194C of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Manzoor Ahmed Walvir v. Dy. CIT [2014] 61 SOT 70 (URO) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the revenue appeal and partly allowed assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The result of the tribunal's order was that the disallowance of Rs. 6,04,40,918/- which was made by the Assessing Officer under section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act was restored. 6. It may be pertinent to note that in the order dated 31.5.2013 the Tribunal had clearly recorded the admission by the assessee, in para 11 of the said order, that such payments, which were the bone of contention, were covered under Section 194-C of the said Act and that in view of this, the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act were clearly applicable in the case of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. No appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 25.2.2016. However, the revenue has filed the present appeal being ITA No. 03/2016 in which we have already re- framed the question. 11. We need not labour on the merits of the matter inasmuch as, the same had been the subject matter of controversy in various High Court decisions which has now been resolved by the Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Palam Gas Services v. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 300 2017 (5) TMI 242. In the said decision also, section 40 (a) (ia) of the said Act was the subject matter of interpretation. The question that the Supreme Court was considering as is reflected in the said decision was as under: "Whether the provisions of Section 40 ....