Income Tax : Karnataka High Court allows PCIT's appeal, upholding a Section 263 revision for non-disallowance of commission payments without TD...
Income Tax : Understand the penalties, interest, and disallowance of expenditure under Section 201 for failure to comply with TDS provisions in...
Income Tax : Learn about disallowed expenses under PGBP in India's Income Tax Act. Understand key sections like 37, 40, and 40A, and their impa...
Income Tax : Learn about disallowances under Income Tax Act sections and their reporting requirements in Form 3CD during tax audits. Key provis...
Income Tax : Delhi HC rules reimbursements to NRAEs not subject to TDS as "fees for technical services," clarifying scope of Section 9(1)(vii) ...
Income Tax : Section 40(a)(ia) is amended via Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 to restrict the amount of disallowance for non-deduction of tax to 30% ...
Income Tax : The existing provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act provide for the disallowance of expenditure like interest, commissi...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi confirmed deletion of addition on alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds, holding that hypothetical or notional in...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India. Consequently...
Income Tax : The issue was whether commission payments were genuine business expenses. The Tribunal held that disallowance based on non-respons...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that interest expenses cannot be disallowed when the trust merely facilitates transactions and costs are reimbur...
Income Tax : Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical ...
Income Tax : Circular No. 3/2015 Section 40(a)(i) of the Act stipulates that in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits or gain...
Income Tax : Sub: Deduction of tax at source under Section 195 read with Sections 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to payment made to a...
Income Tax : Circular No. 10/DV/2013-Income Tax It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there are conflicting interpretations by j...
Section 40a(ia) provides that if any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, then such expenses shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.
Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO – There is no dispute about the fundamental posit ion that as long as the payments are for reimbursements, and not expenditure, the tax deduct ion obligations do not come into play and accordingly, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i ) cannot be made either. In support of this proposition, our attention is invited to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Satyendra Jhunjhunwalla –vs. – ITO (ITA No. 1988/Kol. /2009; order dated 11.11.2011). He, however, fairly submits that as this aspect of the matter, i.e. payment being in the nature of reimbursement , has not been examined by the authorities below, the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the above principle.
Tribunal has held that a payment which has direct link and immediate nexus with the trading liability being connected with the delayed purchase payments will not fall within the category of interest as defined in section 2(28A). The payment made by the assessee in the present appeal being of similar nature also cannot be termed as interest as defined under section 2(28A).
, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in their decision dated 23.11.2011 ITA no. 302 of 2011 GA 3200/2011 in CIT Vs. Virgin Creations, held that that amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 as aforesaid was retrospective from 1.4.2005. The ld. AR pointed out that this is the sole decision rendered by a High Court at the moment on the issue. Following the view in this decision, co-ordinate Bench in their decision dated 11.4.2012 in Piyush C. Mehta Vs. ACIT no.1321/Mum./2009 for the AY 2005-06 and the decision dated 10.5.2012 in ITA no. 717/Bang/2011for the AY 2008-09 in ACIT Vs. M.K. Gurumurthy also held that the aforesaid amendment is applicable retrospectively w.e.f 1.4.2005.
Only grievance of the Revenue is that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a(ia) was only effective from 1.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature. However, we find that in a catena of case laws as mentioned, it has been held that the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) is remedial and curative in nature and has retrospective effect. In this case, admittedly, the TDS deducted was deposited before the date of the filing of the return and under such situation, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Thus we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a correct view in the matter, which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the same.
Once under the special provision of section 44AD of the IT Act exemption from maintenance of books of accounts have been provided and the presumptive tax at 8% of the gross receipts itself is the basis for determining the taxable income, the assessee was not under obligation to explain individual entry of cash deposits in the bank unless such entries had no nexus with the gross receipts. In the present case though from the details filed by assessee the ld. AO observed that no TDS has been recovered, in our opinion, since assessee has disclosed the profits more than 8% of the gross receipts and there is no dispute in receipt of the gross receipts the addition made by ld. CIT(A) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is not sustainable. Therefore we confirm the action of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
In the facts of the present case, the assessee had deducted tax at source out of payments made to contractor totalling Rs. 1,21,75,828 which was deposited on 8-7-2008. The due date for filing return of income of the assessee was 30-9-2008. Following the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations (supra) and various Benches of the Tribunal it is held that once the tax has been deducted and deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing return of income, there is no merit in disallowing the expenditure relatable to such tax deducted at source. The assessee succeeds on both the counts. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has to be directed to allow the claim of expenditure of Rs. 1,01,33,953.
Issue is decided by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax in February, 2007 but the same was deposited in May, 2007 for the AY 2007-08 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.
he amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 has been specifically made retrospectively applicable from the asst. yr. 2010-11. It has nowhere been expressly set out that the amendment is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law. The intention of the legislature as gathered from the Notes on Clauses and the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the Finance Bill does not particularly indicate any relaxation in the provision retrospectively from asst. yr. 2005-06 by providing that the expenditure on which due tax was deducted upto February, 2005 but paid before the due date specified in s. 139(1) shall not suffer any disallowance in the asst. yr. 2005-06.
The issue involved in the present appeal has now been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgin Creation in GA No.3200/2011 dated 23-11-2011 against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.2404/Mum/2009 in order dated 12-09-2011 has taken a view that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply accordingly. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creators (supra) the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs.3,69,568/- as made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
