AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowance of deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in not appreciating the fact that the object of section 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that the TDS provisions are scrupulously implemented without any default and that if the interpretation is assigned to the term 'payable' then the object with which section 40(a)(ia) was inserted would be frustrated. 3. On the facts and circumstances whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non deduction of TDS as per the provisions of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 07.08.2012, in the case of "M/s. Jamkash Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd." in ITA No.136(Asr)/2012. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that out of the total disallowance of Rs. 6,04,40,918/-, an amount of Rs. 4,16,53,215/- had been paid during the year and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,88,05,503/- remained payable at the year end; and that there was an amount of Rs. 17,800/-, in respect of one Sh. Farooq Ahmed Dar, which was also to be excluded, as no TDS had been made that thereon, due to the amount involved. The ld. CIT(A) observed that as such, there ultimately remained an amount of Rs. 1,87,87,703/-, as payable at the end of the year, which needed to be disallowed. 5. Following the aforesaid two decisions, i.e., the ITAT, Special Bench (V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crescent Export Syndicate (supra), decided on 3rd April, 2013, has over-ruled the decision of I.T.A.T.(SB), Vishakhapatnam, in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transporters (supra) and therefore, the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned CIT(A), Jammu, deserves to be canceled. Thus, we cancel the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 by accepting the appeal filed by the Revenue and upholding the assessment order dated 28.11.2011 on the issue in dispute as discussed above for the assessment year 2009-10. 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee i.e. I.T.A. No. 358(Asr)/2012 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue i.e. 417(Asr)/2012 is all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nience. Since the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in ITA No.11/2013 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jamkash Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. Has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar by not admitting the appeal of Revenue by holding that "We regret our inability to accept that any question of law much less a substantive question of law would immerge for admission of the appeal particularly when there was hardly an loss of revenue." Under the circumstances this application of 254 lies before the Hon'ble Bench to adjudicate the appeal of the Revenue afresh after duly considering the judgment of Hon'ble High Court which decision is binding because it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble Supreme Court) is a mistake apparent on record is rectifiable u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court on the point rendered a few months prior to having not been brought brought to I.T.A.No.57/ASR/2013 (In ITA No.417/ASR/2013 AYs: 2009-10 the notice of the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal is rectifiable u/s 354 (2) of the Act. Therefore, he requested for recalling of the above order of the Tribunal. 3. The learned DR argued that the Department has not accepted orders of the Tribunal passed by various Benches on this issue and the Department has gone in appeal before different Hon'ble High Courts. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the Special Bench, Vishakapatnam of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Merilyn Shipping and Transports, Vishakapatnam v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No. 477/Viz/2008 decided on 29.03.2012). 5. At the hearing, we have asked learned counsel for the Revenue about the status of the aforesaid orders passed by various Benches of the Tribunal, in order to satisfy ourselves whether the Revenue has accepted the orders or such orders have been subject matter of challenge in appeal before the jurisdictional High Courts. There is no satisfactory answer given which, in fact, lead us to conclude that the orders of various Tribunals stand accepted by the Revenue. In such a situation the principle of consistency would be attracte....