2017 (4) TMI 1273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of payment of Rs. 71,17,450/- on which TDS was not deducted as required u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Special Bench in the case of Bharti Shipyard vs. DCIT wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was inserted vide Finance Act 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and not retrospective effect from 01.04.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, the learned DR submits that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. He supported the order of the AO. 6. The learned counsel of the assessee files a paper book stating that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) applies retrospectively. Reliance was placed by him on the decision in the case of (i) CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635(Del.) (ii) Pr. CIT vs. Tirupati Construction (GA No. 2146 of 2016 (iii) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 165 TTJ (Agra) 228 (iv) R.K.P. Company vs. ITO (ITA No. 106/RPR/2016)(ITAT- Raipur) (v) Mahesh Kr. Narula vs. JCIT (ITA No. 1094/Kol/2016)(ITAT- Kol....