Case Law Details
Contention of the Assessee- Provision of Sec. 40(a)(ia) shall apply only in respect of the amounts payable at the end of the year and shall not apply on the amounts actually paid by the appellant during the year.
Contention of the Revenue– Ld. DR submitted that disallowance has to be made irrespective of the fact that whether payment is made during the year or not and for this purpose Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Pratibhuti Viniyog Ltd. order dated 22/08/2014 in ITA No.1689/Mum/2011.
We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. Recently, Mumbai Tribunal has decided such issue in favour of the assessee by considering the earlier decisions. Judicial Member is one of the party to the said decision The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:
“5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. After careful consideration, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Vivil Exports P. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), we delete the disallowance. For the sake of completeness relevant observation of the Tribunal from the said decision are reproduced below:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
