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...
The question now is as to whether to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Special bench in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) which has taken the view that Amendment by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act is prospective and not retrospective from 1.4.2005 or the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court taking a contrary view.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee paid a sum of Rs.9,54,684/- to a foreign bank without deduction of tax at source. In the audit report, it was mentioned that it was a usance interest paid under the letter of credit and hence not liable for any deduction of tax at source. In support of its case, the assessee relied on the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 169 (Rajkot) by contending that the interest paid to bank related to the purchases and hence should be considered as part of purchase price.
Provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) would apply only to the expenditure which remain payable as at the end of the relevant financial year. Assessee entitled to claim deduction of expenses if the TDS deducted there on is remitted before the due date for filing the return of income.
Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax – ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM (SPECIAL BENCH) Whether Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act can be invoked only to disallow expenditure of the nature referred to therein which is shown as payable as on the date of the balance sheet or it can be invoked also to disallow such expenditure which become payable at any time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year. Held that section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked in respect of amounts actually paid within the previous year without deduction of TDS. Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts outstanding as of 31st March of every year (Majority view). Section 40(a)(ia) would apply only to amounts outstanding as of 31st March of every year on which TDS not deducted and not to amounts paid during previous year without deduction of TDS for following reasons:
When the CBDT itself has clarified that the amended provisions of Section 194I relating to deduction of tax at source for the purpose of Section 40(a)(ia) would be applicable for AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance. We also find that similar issue came up before the learned CIT (A) in AY 2005-06 wherein he accepted the assessee’s contention.
It is undisputed fact that the appellant is an undertaking and is engaged in the manufacturing of article specified in Fourteenth schedule and in a specified category of states for which it is eligible for deduction u/s.80IC. Such an exemption has been allowed in the earlier years by the Assessing 0fficer himself i.e. for the Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07. Sub-section 3 of section 80IC categorically provides that the deduction would be available for 100% of such profits and gains for 10 assessment years if the profits and gains have been derived from such business activities.
ITAT held that tax withholding provisions under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are not applicable to payments made by the Indian head office to its foreign branch, as both are ‘residents’ according to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 and the relevant Double taxation avoidance agreement (the tax treaty) between India and the US. Furthermore, sales made by the Indian HO to its foreign branch are eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act and are therefore to be included in the ‘export turnover’ when calculating deduction under section 10A of the Act of the Act.
Explore the Roy Mitra vs. ACIT case (ITA No. 1703/2009) involving Sec. 194C, TDS, and contractual disputes. Key rulings and implications revealed.
First of all, we will consider the second part of the submission i.e. since the person to whom the payment was made has already offered the same for taxation, hence provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. This is not correct. Because the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] was rendered under the provisions of sec.201. Secondly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide para-10 has clearly mentioned that in view of Circular No.275/201/95-IT(Clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB) dated 29-1-1997 no demand u/s.201[1] could be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee.
Dy. CIT VS M/s. Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) – Section 195 of the Act has to be read along with the charging sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. One should not read section 195 to mean that the moment there is a remittance; the obligation to deduct TDS automatically arises. If we were to accept such contention, it would mean that on mere payment in India, income would be said to arise or accrue in India.
