SOHANEY BROTHERS,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the payee had disclosed the income and paid taxes thereon, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions which treated the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) as curative and retrospective.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in transportation, was reassessed for AY 2009-10 after the AO noticed non-deduction of TDS on payments to M/s. S.K. Oil. An addition of Rs. 12,72,060/- was made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is permissible when the payee has already paid tax on the income. Another issue concerned the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C,Section 201(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- Kochi, dated 27.03.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. Notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 on 25/03/2015 is illegal. invalid and bad in law. Consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled. 2) Notice issued u/s 148 is not in accordance with law in terms of proviso to section 147 and consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled. Reasons recorded does not indicate any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary f
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026