MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. (SUCCESSOR OTO BRIGHTGOLD CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. SINCE MERGED WTH LODHA IMPESSION REAL ESTATE P. LTD.) (EARLIER KNOWN AS LODHA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 526/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 June 2022AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the recipient had disclosed the interest income and paid taxes thereon, and the assessee had filed the requisite audit certificate, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was held to be retrospective.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid interest to a group company without deducting TDS. The AO disallowed the interest expense and reduced the inventory value. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(ia) is permissible when the recipient has paid taxes on the interest income, and if the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 201

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth
For Respondent: Shri S G Mehta
Hearing: 01/06/2022Pronounced: 08/06/2022

Assessee by Shri Niraj Seth Revenue by Shri S G Mehta Date of Hearing 01/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement 08/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in A.Y.2012-13 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A), Mumbai-49/10087/2015-16 dated 10/02/2021 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/03/2015

M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest on account of non-deduction of tax at source u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate construction and development. During the year under consideration, the ld. AO observed that assessee had paid the interest of Rs.1,63,10,620/- without deduction of tax at source to its group company on the loans borrowed from group company. In response to the show-cause notice issued by the ld. AO as to why the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should not be invoked on the assessee, the assessee responded that the recipient party had duly filed its returns of income alongwith interest income and tax and hence in view of the second proviso of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 201 of the Act, no disallowance of interest u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act would be operational in the hands of the assessee. It was also pleaded that the amendment brought by way of second proviso by Finance Act 2012, is to be construed with retrospective in operation. The ld. AO however, objected that the said amendment should be held only in prospective in application and accordingly, proceeded to disallow the interest. However, the ld. AO observed that out of the total interest of Rs.1,63,10,620/-, an amount of Rs.1,26,96,353/- has been capitalised by the assessee to inventory account and the remaining amount of Rs.36,14,267/- has been debited to profit and loss account. Accordingly, the ld. AO disallowed Rs.36,14,267/- u/s.40(a)(ia)

M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., of the Act and sought to reduce a sum of Rs.1,26,96,353/- from the value of inventory. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).

3.1. It is a fact that assessee had duly enclosed the details of recipient wherein the recipient had disclosed the interest income in its return and paid taxes thereon. The assessee had also submitted the requisite audit certificate in the prescribed form No.26A and filed it before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A). This goes to conclusively prove that the payee had duly paid taxes on the same and in view of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s.201 of the Act, no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be made in the hands of the assessee payer. Though the second proviso has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012, the same had been held to be retrospective in operation by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 377 ITR 635. Respectfully following the same, we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs.36,14,267/- and also increase the value of inventory in the sum of Rs.1,26,96,353/-. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 08/ 06 /2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

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 →