Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (11) TMI 1879

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'Act'). 2. 1st and 2nd issues to be decided in this appeal are that whether a sum of Rs.41,71,115/- could be added u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and 50% commission expenditure could be held to be bogus in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is an individual and wholesaler of medicines and running his business under the name and style "M/s. Roy Agency". During the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 9,42,230/- in his P & L account towards commission payment. The ld.AO found that the said payments were liable for deduction of tax at source [TDS]. Accordingly, he sought to disallow the same u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no details were filed before him by the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. We have heard the ld. Sr.DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue of paid/payable as decided by the ITAT Special Bench, Vishakapatnam in the context of applicability of section 40(a)(ia) has been reversed by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Crescent Export Syndicate reported in (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 250(Cal.), wherein their Lordships of Calcutta High Court held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could be invoked even in respect of amounts paid before the end of the financial year. We also find that there is an amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by insertion of second proviso w.e.f 1-4-2013, wherein if the paye....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause(ia) of section 40(8) was inserted by the Finance No.2) Act, 2004, even though the Finance Act, 2012 had not specifically stated that proviso is retrospective in nature. The High Court affirmed the ratio laid down by The Agra Tribunal and held that said proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005". Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we set aside this issue to the file of the ld.AO to decide the same in the light of the aforesaid judgment( as stated supra). Accordingly, we direct the ld.AO to verify whether the payee(s) has included the subject mentioned receipts in....