Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Bapushaeb Nanasaheb Dhumal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Bapushaeb Nanasaheb Dhumal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 26, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (bapusaheb_dhumal_194C_40ai.pdf)

Default u/s 194C does not result in s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance if TDS paid before due date of filing ROI

The assessee made payments to sub-contractors during the previous year and though s. 194C requires TDS at the stage of payment/credit, did not do so. The tax was, however, deducted on 31st March and paid over in Sept before the due date for filing the return. The AO took the view that while the payment made to the sub-contractor for March was allowable, the payments for the earlier months was disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia). This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

Failure to deduct or deposit tax as per s. 194C or Chapter-XVII makes the assessee liable to the consequences provided under the said Chapter-XVII. However, s. 40(a)(ia) is in addition to Chapter XVII. S. 40(a)(ia)(A) provides that if tax is deducted during the last month of the previous year and paid on or before the due date of filing of return as per s. 139(1), then such sum shall be allowed as deduction. In cases where tax is deducted other than the last month of previous year but is deposited before the last day of the previous year, then it will be allowed as deduction. Therefore, the conditions for allowability of deduction are prescribed u/s 40(a)(ia) itself and Chapter-XVII and s. 194C are not relevant. If the condition of deduction and payment prescribed u/s 194C / Chapter XVII are held applicable for disallowance of deduction u/s 40(a)(ia), then s. 40(a)(ia) will be rendered meaningless, absurd and otiose. Since the assessee had (belatedly) deducted tax in the last month of the previous year i.e. March 2005 and deposited the same before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1), deduction had to be allowed u/s 40(a)(ia) (A).

Note: S. 40(a)(ia) has been amended by the FA 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to provide that in all cases if TDS is paid before the due date of filing the ROI, no disallowance shall be made.

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…
  • Shilpa Shetty vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the view that since chapter 10 pre-supposes the existence of "income" and lays down machinery provison to compute ALP of such income, if it arises from an „International transaction‟. Section 92 is not an independent charging section to bring in a new head of income or to…
  • Deepak B Shah vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that addition has been made by the AO U/s 69A of the Act to justify the addition on account of peak balance. We agree with the contentions of the Ld. AR that it is sine qua non for invoking section 69A of the IT Act., the assessee must…
  • Sudhir Menon vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In view of consistent view of jurisdictional High Court and Delhi High Court, in the absence of pending return of income, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act is clear that notice can be issued only when a valid return is pending for assessment. Accordingly, this notice has no…
  • M/s Shah Realtors vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The case law relied by Assessing Officer in ITO Vs Diamond Investment and Properties ITA No. 5537/M/2009 is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In case of Diamond Investment and Properties (supra), the flats were sold to the related parties was much lower than the price charged…
  • Crescent Construction Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is permissive and not a mandatory provision. Nine situations by way of illustrations are stated, which are by way of example or guidelines. As a permissive provision it enables to judge to support his judgment but there is no scope of presumption when…

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. MDS Switchgear (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the AO had granted deduction under sections 80HH & 80-I in the year of formation of the new industrial undertaking, he could not, in a subsequent year, deny the deduction on the ground that the conditions are not fulfilled, if he has not withdrawn the deduction granted in…
  2. New Shailaja CHS vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee, a Co.op Housing Society became entitled, by virtue of the Development Control Regulations, to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and the same were sold by it for a price to a builder and the question arose whether the transaction of sale receipt could be taxed, HELD that…
  3. Dharmasingh Popat vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Though in general law, a firm and its partners are not distinct, this is subject to statutory exceptions. Under the scheme of assessment of firms applicable from AY. 1993-94 a firm is treated as an independent entity and the expenditure by way of remuneration, interest, commission etc. paid to…
  4. Om Shanti Co-op Society vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The assessee – society and its members had no right to construct additional floors on the existing building as they had exhausted the right available while constructing the flats in the building. The TDR was not obtained by the assessee and sold to the developer. Accordingly, the assessee had…
  5. ACIT vs. Dinesh K. Mehta HUF (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The argument of the assessee that to constitute a hedging transaction u/s 43(5)(b), a transaction need not be in the same shares held by the assessee as inventory or that the value of hedging transactions should be equal to or less than the value of inventory held by the…