{"id":5998,"date":"2012-12-10T09:49:24","date_gmt":"2012-12-10T09:49:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5998"},"modified":"2012-12-10T10:01:50","modified_gmt":"2012-12-10T10:01:50","slug":"cit-vs-ms-merilyn-shipping-transports-andhra-pradesh-high-court-special-bench-verdict-on-s-40aia-applying-only-to-amounts-payable-stayed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-ms-merilyn-shipping-transports-andhra-pradesh-high-court-special-bench-verdict-on-s-40aia-applying-only-to-amounts-payable-stayed\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. M\/s. Merilyn Shipping &#038; Transports (Andhra Pradesh High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=912\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=912&varname2=merilyn_shipping_40_a_ia_TDS_special_bench_stay.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (merilyn_shipping_40_a_ia_TDS_special_bench_stay.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nSpecial Bench verdict that s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to &#8220;<em>amounts payable<\/em>&#8221; stayed <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-merilyn-shipping-transports-vs-acit-itat-visakhapatnam-special-bench-s-40aia-tds-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-at-31st-march-and-not-to-amounts-already\/\">Merilyn Shipping &#038; Transports v. ACIT<\/a><\/strong> 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag), the Special Bench held by a majority that as s. 40(a)(ia) refers to &#8220;<em>amount payable<\/em>&#8220;, only the outstanding amount or the provision for expense as of 31st March (<em>and not the amount already paid during the year<\/em>) is liable for disallowance if TDS is not deducted. It was held that this interpretation was necessary as the Finance Bill proposed the disallowance to apply to any \u201c<em>amount credited or paid<\/em>\u201d but this was changed to \u201c<em>amount payable<\/em>\u201d in the Finance Act. On the department&#8217;s appeal to the High Court, the High Court has vide order dated 8.10.2012 directed &#8220;<em><strong>interim suspension<\/strong><\/em>&#8221; of the Special Bench&#8217;s verdict. <\/p>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-merilyn-shipping-transports-vs-acit-itat-visakhapatnam-special-bench-s-40aia-tds-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-at-31st-march-and-not-to-amounts-already\/\">Merilyn Shipping &#038; Transports v. ACIT<\/a><\/strong> 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag), the Special Bench held by a majority that as s. 40(a)(ia) refers to &#8220;<em>amount payable<\/em>&#8220;, only the outstanding amount or the provision for expense as of 31st March (<em>and not the amount already paid during the year<\/em>) is liable for disallowance if TDS is not deducted. It was held that this interpretation was necessary as the Finance Bill proposed the disallowance to apply to any \u201c<em>amount credited or paid<\/em>\u201d but this was changed to \u201c<em>amount payable<\/em>\u201d in the Finance Act. On the department&#8217;s appeal to the High Court, the High Court has vide order dated 8.10.2012 directed &#8220;<em><strong>interim suspension<\/strong><\/em>&#8221; of the Special Bench&#8217;s verdict<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-ms-merilyn-shipping-transports-andhra-pradesh-high-court-special-bench-verdict-on-s-40aia-applying-only-to-amounts-payable-stayed\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}