DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED , VIJAYAWADA

The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance seeks to reverse the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.5 crores on account of assessee’s failure in not deducting TDS qua interest expenditure as prescribed u/s.192A of the Act.

We notice from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s corresponding lower appellate discussion on the sole issue in para 8 to 8.5 that the tribunal’s orders in AY.2009-10 and 2010-11 have already been accepted the assessee’s arguments regarding the impugned 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the interest payments made to the very entities i.e., NTPC and VIWSCO; as the case may be in view of the fact that the said recipients of the interest expenditure had already accounted for the same and stood duly assessed to this effect. Learned counsel next invited our attention that there is no dispute on the fact since the assessee had already filed all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the preceding rival contentions and hold that Revenue’s sole substantive grievance carrys no merit in view of the learned co-ordinate bench’s order in AYs.2009-10 and 2010-11 invoking Section 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted in the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f.01-04-2013 held as having retrospective effects being curative in nature in CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd., (2016) [279 CTR 384] (Del). The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance is declined therefore.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.