AVAYA INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8111/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeal. The Revenue's representative had no objection to this request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the disallowance of car lease rental payments. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2013-14.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the disallowance of car lease rental payments due to non-deduction of TDS and the applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 01.12.2022Pronounced: 01.12.2022

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM,

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals)-44, New Delhi, dated 28.09.2018 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-

1. Ground No.1 - Disallowance of car lease rental payments amounting to INR 7,49,34,033 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi ['learned CIT(A)] has, vide its order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), erred in confirming the action of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-1, New Delhi ('learned AO') for disallowance made under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on account of non- deduction of tax at source on car lease rental payments.

1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for other minor items aggregating to IN 40,000 included in car lease rental payments. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the second proviso to section 40(a) (la) of the Act is not applicable to the subject AY i.e. AY 2013-14. 1.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the deduction for car lease rental payments amounting to IN 7,49,34,033 to the Appellant in accordance with second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

2.

Ground No. 2 - General a) Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal

preferred by the Appellant.”

3. At the outset, in this case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal and requested that permission may be granted to withdraw the same.

4.

The Ld. DR has no objection in this regard.

5.

Accordingly, this appeal by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01st December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →