| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | M. S. Sanklecha J, Riyaz I. Chagla J |
| SECTION(S): | 40(a)(i), 9(1)(vi) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax, International Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | royalty, TDS disallowance |
| COUNSEL: | Divesh Chawla |
| DATE: | January 29, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 16, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2009-10 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 40(a)(i) TDS disallowance: A party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. S. 40(a)(i) disallowance can be made only if the royalty falls under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) but not if it falls under Explanation 6 to s. 9(1)(vi) | |
The view taken by the Tribunal that a party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. This is in accord with the view taken by this Court in CIT v/s. Cello Plast (2012) 209 Taxmann 617 – wherein this Court has applied the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform)
Recent Comments