| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
February 8, 2012 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
S. 40(a)(ia) TDS: Even if Payee has paid tax, payer not eligible for deduction
For AY 2007-08 & 08-09, the assessee paid VSAT & transaction charges without deduction of TDS. The AO held the payment to be “fees for technical services” & disallowed the payment u/s 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS u/s 194J though the CIT (A) allowed the claim by relying on Skycell Communications 251 ITR 53 (Mad). Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that though the merits was covered against it by CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd 340 ITR 333 (Bom), the deduction had to be allowed because (i) s. 40(a)(ia) was not a ‘tax-levying’ provision but was merely to ensure that tax was paid by either the payer or the payee. As the payee had already paid the taxes, the bar in s. 40(a)(i) did not apply in line with Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage 293 ITR 226 (SC) and (ii) in accordance with Kotak Securities, as the department had not objected to the non-deduction of TDS on transaction charges in the past, there was no justification for invocation of s.40(a)(ia). HELD by the Tribunal:
The argument that since the payee has already paid due tax on the income, s. 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked is not correct. The law in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage 293 ITR 226 (SC) that if the payee is assessed, the tax cannot be recovered from the payer was in the context of s.201 and pursuant to Circular No.275/201/95-IT dated 29-1-1997. In the absence of such circular in case of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), the principle laid down cannot be adopted for s. 40(a)(ia). As regards the principle that the department had accepted the position in the past, the defense is available for AY 2007-08 but not for AY 2008-09.
Note: See the contra view in M/s Amirtham Transport (included in file) that to avoid double disallowance, deduction to the payer should be allowed in the year of payment of tax by the payee.
Related Posts:
- Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of…
- Kamal Galani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the Ld. AO that account with HSBC bank , Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened…
- Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is clear from the above decisions that in case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition is required to be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases
- Bank Of India vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, our entire focus was on whether these foreign tax credits could be allowed even when such tax credits lead to a situation in which taxes paid abroad could be refunded in India, but that must not be construed to mean that, as a corollary to our…
- ACIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) That is a classic case of a subtle unilateral treaty override. While, in India, the expression 'treaty override' is often loosely used for the situations where the provisions of tax treaty prevails over any inconsistent provisions of domestic law, this approach seems to be at variance with the international practices…
- Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) As all of us are traversing through one of the toughest patch of time, facing the Covid 19 pandemic, and the poorer sections of society are hardest hit. It is, therefore, all the more necessary for every employer company to take care of its employees. We find that in view…
Sir
can i have the citation of Amiritham transport ‘s case referred to by you.
I my case , though the amount has been disallowed, CIT (appeals ) refused to give direction to allow it in th enext year ( the year of payment ) and the time for revision the return fo rthe next yer has elasped.
thanks
srinivasan