M/S RMC SERVICES,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT, RANGE IV, CHANDIARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to verify if the NBFCs offered the interest income in their returns and paid due taxes, and if the assessee provides a certificate to that effect.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not deduct tax at source (TDS) on interest payments made to Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs). The Assessing Officer disallowed this interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is attracted when the recipient has offered the income and paid taxes, despite non-deduction of TDS by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd.177 citing61 Taxmann.com 45 · 2015 · HC
आदेश/Order
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.08.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] .
The sole issue raised by the assessee is regarding the confirmation of disallowance by the CIT(A) which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') as the assessee did not deduct tax at source (TDS) on -c-2019 M/s RMC Services, Chandigarh 2 interest payment to Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFC).
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the amended provisions of section 201(1) and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to state that as per the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2012, an assessee will not be treated as assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment made to a resident, if he has furnished his return of income and has taken into account such sum for commuting income in such return of income and has paid the due taxes on the income declared by him in such return and further the assessee furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant. The assessee, before us, has taken the plea that though the assessee had not deducted the tax at source, however, recipients have offered the income in the computation in their returns of income and, therefore, the addition is not attracted in the case of the assessee as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, in this respect has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.” (2015) 61 taxman.com 45 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative and it has a retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the case of the assessee is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) -c-2019 M/s RMC Services, Chandigarh 3 Ltd. The Ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to produce the relevant evidence in this respect.
The Ld. DR has not objected to the same.
In view of the above, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of the assessee that the interest paid to the Non-Banking Finance Companies have been taken into account by the said payee in their returns of income and due taxed paid as per the return of income and further a certificate to this effect be furnished before the Assessing Officer as per the requirement of the section. The Assessing Officer after consideration of the matter will decide the issue in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 17.08.2020.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026