TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has got executed works worth Rs. 123.16 lacs from sub-contractors. There are 10 sub-contractors to whom gross amount payable was of Rs. 1,23,16,160/-. The amount paid upto 28thd Feb. 2007 was to the tune of Rs. 66,00,882/-. The amount paid after 28-0207 was 41,51,834/-. Such details are available at page 3 of the assessment order. The amounts paid or payable have been considered after excluding the tax deducted at source and profit on sub-contracts by the contractor. The AO verified the payment made to the sub-contractors from the bank statement and the payments made upto 28-02-07 in respect of different sub-contractors are as under:- Name Amount 1. Pushpendra Singh Gehlot Rs. 12.50 lacs 2. Gajendra Singh Gehlot R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the due date of filing of return. 2.4 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Bapusaheb Nanasaheb Dhumal vs ACIT (ITA No. 6628 /Mum/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06) dated 25-062010. 2.5 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee after observing as under:- 3.4 From the language of Section 40(a)(ia), it is clear that only where the tax was deductible during the last month and was actually deducted during the last month of previous year, allowance has to be made if the amount is deposited before the due date of filing of return. In the case of appellant, the sum was deducted during the last month but was not deductible in that month. The sum was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, even if the payment is made after the end of year, but before due date of filing of return. Obviously this can never be the intention of the legislature. This itself proves the fallacy of argument of the appellant. 3.6 As mentioned 2.6 Before us, the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee claimed before that AO that entire payments was credited in the month of March 07 and tax was deducted in the month of March 07 only. Therefore, the tax deposited on 28-05-07 is within the statutory period of payment i.e. 31-05-07. Hence, the expenditure was not disallowable in view of the provisions available at that relevant time. It was further submitted that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Chapter XVII B are mutually....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 139 CTR 364 (SC) The amendment by Finance Act, 1987 in respect of the insertion of first proviso to Section 43B was held as curative in nature and the same was given retrospective effect from the date of inception of Section 43A. 2. CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. , 319 ITR 306 (SC) The amendment by Finance Act , 2003 for bringing about uniformity about payment in tax, duty, ceee and fee with contribution to welfare funds was held as curative in nature and held applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01-04-1988. 3. CIT Vs. Poddar Cement (P) ltde, 226 ITR 625 By Finance Bill, 1987, the meaning and expression of house property in Section 27 was enlarged. The Hon'ble Apex Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her then last month is the month of the previous year then the expenditure covered u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not be admissible unless such tax was paid before the end of the previous year. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the assessee has deducted the tax at source in the last month. Therefore, disallowance was not required to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Before us, the ld. AR has filed the copy of the TDS return showing the payment of TDS in the month of May 2007. Hence, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,01,50,000. 3.1 The second ground of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating interest income of Rs. 7,55,721/- on FDR of banks, earnest money etc of fir....