2018 (9) TMI 1539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... directed against the common order of the CIT(A) dated 23.10.2017. The relevant assessment years are 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2012 and 2012-2013. Since common issues are involved in these appeals and cross objections, we dispose off the same by this consolidated order. 2. The first common ground raised by the Revenue, in all its appeals is with regard to the deletion of addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act for non-deduction of tax on royalty paid on the ground that the recipients of royalty have returned the royalty received as income in respective years. 3. The brief facts of the case are that while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer has made additions u/s 40(a)(ia) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Court has held that once it is found that there was a failure to deduct tax at source, the fact that the recipient has subsequently paid the tax, would not absolve the payee from the consequence of disallowance. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was inserted with effect from 01.04.2013 is curable in nature, and therefore, applicable retrospectively. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) ITR 677 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. [(2018) 404 ITR 654 (SC)]. 5. We have heard th....