Renew Your Membership by 31st October 2024! Renew Now!

February 2014

ITO vs. Theekathir Press ITAT Chennai `B’ Bench Before Dr. O. K. Narayanan (VP) and V. Durga Rao (JM) ITA No. 2076/Mds/2012 A.Y.: 2009-10. Decided on: 18th September, 2013. Counsel for revenue/assessee: Guru Bhashyam/J. Prabhakar

By Jagdish D. Shah, Jagdish T. Punjabi, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 40(a)(ia)– Since there is a judicial controversy on whether section 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts that have already been “paid” or it is confined to amounts “payable” at the end of the year, the rule of judicial precedence demands that the view favorable to the assessee must be adopted.

Facts:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of certain expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the tax has not been deducted at source. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeal by stating that the amounts `payable’ only attract disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and the amounts already paid would not attract the provisions of section 40(a) (ia).

Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal where it relied on three decisions of Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court which have held that the law stated by the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. Addl CIT is not acceptable.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court is in favour of the assessee but the orders of the Calcutta High Court and the Gujarat High Court are against the assessee. It held that in such circumstances, the rule of judicial precedence demands that the view favourable to the assessee must be adopted, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC). In view of the fundamental rule declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which is in favor of the assessee, held that the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to those amounts which are `payable’ and not to those amounts which are `paid’.

The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

You May Also Like