Tribunal held that the payment made by assessee to a foreign company for the services rendered by it for uploading and display of the banner advertisement on its portal was in the nature of business profit and not royalty and such payment was not chargeable to tax in India as the recipient has no PE in India and, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the payment for such services and the same cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax.

 (i)  the assessee was the real and economic employer of the secondees under the secondment agreement. (ii)  the reimbursement of salary costs and other expenditure was without any profit element and hence cannot be regarded as income chargeable in the hands of Abbey National Plc, UK under Article 13 of the India-U.K. Treaty, the above [...]

Section 40a(ia) provides that if any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, then such expenses shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.

In the facts of the present case, the assessee had deducted tax at source out of payments made to contractor totalling Rs. 1,21,75,828 which was deposited on 8-7-2008. The due date for filing return of income of the assessee was 30-9-2008. Following the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations (supra) and various Benches of the Tribunal it is held that once the tax has been deducted and deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing return of income, there is no merit in disallowing the expenditure relatable to such tax deducted at source. The assessee succeeds on both the counts. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has to be directed to allow the claim of expenditure of Rs. 1,01,33,953.

Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO – There is no dispute about the fundamental posit ion that as long as the payments are for reimbursements, and not expenditure, the tax deduct ion obligations do not come into play and accordingly, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i ) cannot be made either. In support of this proposition, our attention is invited to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Satyendra Jhunjhunwalla –vs. – ITO (ITA No. 1988/Kol. /2009; order dated 11.11.2011). He, however, fairly submits that as this aspect of the matter, i.e. payment being in the nature of reimbursement , has not been examined by the authorities below, the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the above principle.

, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in their decision dated 23.11.2011 ITA no. 302 of 2011 GA 3200/2011 in CIT Vs. Virgin Creations, held that that amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 as aforesaid was retrospective from 1.4.2005. The ld. AR pointed out that this is the sole decision rendered by a High Court at the moment on the issue. Following the view in this decision, co-ordinate Bench in their decision dated 11.4.2012 in Piyush C. Mehta Vs. ACIT no.1321/Mum./2009 for the AY 2005-06 and the decision dated 10.5.2012 in ITA no. 717/Bang/2011for the AY 2008-09 in ACIT Vs. M.K. Gurumurthy also held that the aforesaid amendment is applicable retrospectively w.e.f 1.4.2005.

Only grievance of the Revenue is that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a(ia) was only effective from 1.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature. However, we find that in a catena of case laws as mentioned, it has been held that the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) is remedial and curative in nature and has retrospective effect. In this case, admittedly, the TDS deducted was deposited before the date of the filing of the return and under such situation, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Thus we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a correct view in the matter, which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the same.

Once under the special provision of section 44AD of the IT Act exemption from maintenance of books of accounts have been provided and the presumptive tax at 8% of the gross receipts itself is the basis for determining the taxable income, the assessee was not under obligation to explain individual entry of cash deposits in the bank unless such entries had no nexus with the gross receipts. In the present case though from the details filed by assessee the ld. AO observed that no TDS has been recovered, in our opinion, since assessee has disclosed the profits more than 8% of the gross receipts and there is no dispute in receipt of the gross receipts the addition made by ld. CIT(A) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is not sustainable. Therefore we confirm the action of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

he amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 has been specifically made retrospectively applicable from the asst. yr. 2010-11. It has nowhere been expressly set out that the amendment is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law. The intention of the legislature as gathered from the Notes on Clauses and the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the Finance Bill does not particularly indicate any relaxation in the provision retrospectively from asst. yr. 2005-06 by providing that the expenditure on which due tax was deducted upto February, 2005 but paid before the due date specified in s. 139(1) shall not suffer any disallowance in the asst. yr. 2005-06.

The issue involved in the present appeal has now been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgin Creation in GA No.3200/2011 dated 23-11-2011 against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.2404/Mum/2009 in order dated 12-09-2011 has taken a view that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply accordingly. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creators (supra) the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs.3,69,568/- as made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.