This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
S. 40(a)(iii): No specified period for TDS deposit in claiming salary expenses
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 1991-92
- Courts
- All High Courts, Delhi High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Brief of the Case
Delhi High Court held In the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT that absence of a provision similar to sec. 40(a) (i) does not mean that the Assessee would also be disentitled to claim deduction on account of salaries in the year to which such expenses pertained even though the Assessee has subsequently discharged its obligation to deposit the tax. In our view, this added condition that the tax must be deducted and paid within time, cannot be read in Section 40(a) (iii). The plain language of the Section 40(a) (iii) does not permit such interpretation. If the parliament...






