Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to those amounts ‘payable’ and not to those amounts ‘paid’

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 ‘tribunal’ in I.T.A.No. 2076/Mds/2012 dated 18.9.2013 in the case of ITO vs M/s Theekathir Press [authored by one of us, Dr.O.K.Narayanan, VP] has held that since there is variation of decisions on ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ issue in view of the fact that the hon’ble Calcutta high court and Gujarat high court have decided the question in favour of the Revenue and the hon’ble Allahabad high court in the case of CIT vs M/s Vector shipping Services (P) Ltd has proceeded in favour of the assessee, the case law of hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 would apply so as to decide the issue in assessee’s favour.

 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

[BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT

AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER]

I.T.A. No.1951/Mds/12 – Assessment year : 2009-10

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.