Case Law Details
Case Name : Bapushaeb Nanasaheb Dhumal Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Bapushaeb Nanasaheb Dhumal Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee made payments to sub-contractors during the previous year and though s. 194C requires TDS at the stage of payment/credit, did not do so. The tax was, however, deducted on 31st March and paid over in Sept before the due date for filing the return. The AO took the view that while the payment made to the sub-contractor for March was allowable, the payments for the earlier months was dis allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:
Failure to deduct or deposit tax as p...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
0 Comments
Cancel reply
Is this applicable for A. Y. 2009-10?
Income tax Appellate Tribunal on 16-1-2009 in ITA No.879/2008 in case of B.UdayaKumar Shetty has held 40(a)(i)(a) is inapplicable once tax deducted @ source u/s.194C is paid within the staturoty period prescribed u/s.139(1) and has to be allowed as deduction and has also considered the Amendment made by Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2005. Revenue has questioned the same in ITA.No.319/2009 in Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the matter is pending after admission of appeal.