This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to those amounts ‘payable’ and not to those amounts ‘paid’
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s Eskay Designs (ITAT Chennai)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2009- 10
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Chennai
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
Before us, the sole argument of the Revenue is that ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ distinction drawn by the CIT(A) whilst issuing aforesaid directions to the Assessing Officer on the basis of Special Bench decision (supra) is no longer sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Md. Jakir Hossain Mondal dated 4.4.2013 in ITAT No. 31 of 2013 and Gujarat high court’s decision in the case of CIT vs Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar, 33 Taxman.com 133. In this backdrop, we find that the co-ordinate bench of the R...
