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 › CIT vs. M/s Virgin Creations (Calcutta High Court)

CIT vs. M/s Virgin Creations (Calcutta High Court)

Posted on by editor — 6 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 6, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (virgin_creations_40_a_i_TDS_retrospective.pdf)


S. 40(a)(ia) TDS amendment to give extended time for payment is retrospective

The assessee deducted tax at source from paid charges between the period 1.4.2005 & 28.4.2006 though it paid the TDS in July and August 2006. The TDS was deposited after the end of the FY though before the due date of filing of the return of income. The AO invoked s. 40(a)(ia) and held that as the TDS had not been paid on or before the last day of the previous year, the deduction was not admissible. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim. On appeal by the department, the High Court had to consider whether the amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the FA 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to provide that the TDS has to be paid on or before the due date for filing the ROI was prospective or retrospective. HELD by the High Court dismissing the department’s appeal:

In Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 & Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306, the Supreme Court held that the amendments to the aforesaid provision (s. 43B) have retrospective application. Also, in R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala 82 ITR 570 (SC), the Supreme Court held that a provision which was inserted the remedy to make a provision workable requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

Note: See the contrary view in Bharati Shipyard 132 ITD 53 (Mum)(SB). For the law on whether the Special Bench prevails over a non-jurisdictional High Court see Article

Related Posts:

  • J. J. Development Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) The appellant-assessee has referred to a judgment of this Court reported at 114 ITR 689 for the proposition that upon the identity of the person who has put in the money being established by the assessee, the onus is on the Revenue to discredit the explanation offered in terms of…
  • Shrikant Mohta vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) The non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 153A (1) of the Act suspends, for the purpose and to the extent as indicated in such provision, the operation of several other provisions of the Act, including Section 139 and even Section 147 in course of any reassessment. In other…
  • CIT vs. Alpine Investments (Calcutta High Court) It appears that the share loss and the whole transactions were supported by contract notes, bills and were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and all the payments made to the stockbroker and all the payments received from stockbroker through account payee instruments, which were also…
  • Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Calcutta High Court) The failure to do the above is nothing short of being an act of highhandedness. Such actions of the authorities is an obloquy and reprehensible. No explanation has been provided for the same either in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions or by counsel appearing on behalf of…
  • Binod Kumar Agarwala vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) A rosy picture as to the financial position of the applicant seeking credit facilities from a bank would be presented before the bank for the bank to assess the creditworthiness of the applicant and the desirability of extending credit facilities to such applicant; but later another balance-sheet and profit and…
  • PCIT vs. Rungta Mines Ltd (Calcutta High Court) The distinction between the judgment in R.B. Seth Moolchand Sugachand and the judgment in Bikanker Gypsums Ltd is that in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd there was a pre-existing right and the expenditure was incurred not to assert a new right but to exercise a pre-existing right. In the present case, it…

Related Judgements

  1. Clifford Chance UK vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The fiction of s. 9 is subject to the territorial nexus doctrine and income that arises out of a transaction requires to be apportioned to each of the territories. Whatever is payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for services would not always come within…
  2. CIT vs. DB (India) Securities (Delhi High Court) 

    Share broker is eligible to claim “bad debts” u/s 36 (1) (vii) / 36 (2) The assessee, a broker, purchased shares of the value of Rs.1,06,10,247 on behalf of its sub-broker. The sub-broker made payment of Rs.64 lakhs. As the … CIT vs. DB (India) Securities (Delhi High…
  3. CIT vs. Earnest Exports (Bombay High Court) 

    The power u/s 254(2) is confined to a rectification of a mistake apparent on record. S. 254(2) is not a carte blanche for the Tribunal to change its own view by substituting a view which it believes should have been taken in the first instance. S. 254(2) is not…
  4. Sarthak Securities vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) 

    The AO cannot reopen the assessment u/s 147 merely on the basis of information received without applying his mind to the information and forming an opinion. The reasons must show due application of mind to the information. He also cannot reopen merely because he has been directed to do…
  5. Indo Tech Electric Co vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) 

    Both the Tribunal and the AO have held that what was done by the assessee is clearly an attempt to evade tax in order to get over s. 55(2). It is a well settled principle of law that what is permissible is avoidance but not evasion. When an attempt…
6 comments on “CIT vs. M/s Virgin Creations (Calcutta High Court)”
  1. P Ray says:
    March 7, 2012 at 5:38 am

    Thank God; a voice of sanity at last !

    Reply
  2. P Ray says:
    March 7, 2012 at 5:41 am

    sorry…….. simplicity……..at last

    Reply
  3. B.N.Agrawal says:
    March 8, 2012 at 4:18 am

    Really a landmark judgement.

    Reply
  4. B.N.Agrawal says:
    March 8, 2012 at 4:21 am

    This judgement is binding throughout India despite ITAT Spl. Bench judgement in Bharati Shipyard

    Reply
  5. s.srinivasan says:
    March 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    dear Sir
    Is this reported and if so can i have the citation
    thanks in advance
    srinivasan

    Reply
  6. K.K.BANERJEE says:
    April 26, 2013 at 7:04 am

    THANKS GOD, REALLY IT IS LAND MARK JUDGEMENT

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*