| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
June 5, 2013 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
No s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance for default of short-deduction of TDS
The assessee made payments to various contractors. Though tax was deducted at source, it was at a rate lower than that prescribed under the Act. The AO & CIT(A) held that as there was a default by the assessee, the expenditure had to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:
A combined reading of s. 201(1A) and s. 40(a)(ia) shows that while a case of short-deduction of TDS is covered by s. 201(1A), it is not covered by s. 40(a)(ia). There is an obvious omission to include short deduction / lesser deduction in s. 40(a)(ia). Therefore, in case of short /lesser deduction of tax, the entire expenditure whose genuineness was not doubted by the assessing officer, cannot be disallowed (S.K. Tekriwal (Cal HC) & Chandabhoy and Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mum) followed)
Note: It is also held that foreign currency loss on loan given to a subsidiary for capital purposes is not deductible
Related Posts:
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
- Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee before us is closely involved with the transaction and it is inconceivable that the assessee will have no direct knowledge of the owners of the underlying company and settlors of the trust which has her, as she herself puts it, as beneficiary of such a huge amount. This…
- Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The ld DR vehemently argued that the percentage of shareholding remains the same because reduction of shares had happened for all shareholders. We find that the ld DR relied on para 24 of the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in 133 ITD 1 supra to support his proposition.…
- Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Indian subsidiary of the assessee had for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y 2019-20 entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT. As is discernible from the "APA‟, the functions of the subsidiary company inter alia included "marketing and sale of various software solutions" of the assessee company. As per the "APA‟…
- DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad) To summarise, in our view, the issue of shares at ‘face value’ by the amalgamated company (assessee) to the shareholders of amalgamating company in pursuance of scheme of amalgamation legally recognized in the Court of Law neither falls with scope & ambit of clause (viib) to S. 56(2), when tested…
- Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) As against the assessee's position, the primary material to make additions in the hands of assessee is the statement of Shri Vipul Bhat and the outcome of search proceedings on his associated entities including M/s SAL. However, there is nothing on record to establish vital link between the assessee group…
On a reading of the order, particularly paragraph 13, the issue is seen to have been decided in assessee’s favour, in effect on the ground that there is an omission on the part of the legislature to ensure that the two referred provisions are mutually compatible and consistent.
If the legislative history were to be given a close look, this, perhaps, is not a solitary instance but just one in a series of its kind. What is deplorable is the fact that such issues have come to be raised time and again, and led to prolonged disputes and court litigation; thereby proving an irritant both to taxpayers and adjudicating authorities. To recall, one of the rudimentary principles of jurisprudence, well settled by case law, is that in a taxing enactment, nothing must be read in or implied. Even so, one will find that is the very rule often broken ; butchered and made a casualty by assessing officers dictated by own whims and fancies.
The instant case brings to one’s mind a closely related provision of a later origin; that is, section 200A, and the new insertions in section 201 (2). On a tentative study, one’s irresistible feeling is, that the said provisions do not cover, adequately or otherwise, all possible situations giving rise to excess or short TDS, and for whatever reason. So much so, seem to bristle with immense scope for problems, and potentials for disputes and a right royal legal battle..
For a clue : Section 200A talks of computerised processing of TDS statement (s) made by the deductor, But that concerns itself to such statement(s) on record for any one year. In a case where any incorrect particulars are furnished in that year’s statement , but not having been detected hence left to be reflected in that year’s statement, there appears to be no way for making any such ‘adjustments’ as envisaged in section 200A (1)- (a) and/ or (b) in a later year.
Not all said, over to the supposedly well equipped stalwarts and experts in practice, who could better identify and consider in-depth all such areas; also follow-up by representing to the government for appropriately effective correctives in a wholesome manner. As, otherwise, are bound to add to the woes already faced with by honest taxpayers because of the messed-up TDS regime; especially, after the set-up of the CPU .
For a quick idea, the recent Delhi High Court Writs in the PIL matter exclusively devoted to such hassles and hardships is worthwhile to go through.