M/S. NUTECH CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal remitted both disallowances back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, it directed verification if payees had already offered the income to tax. For the Section 43B disallowance, it directed verification of actual payment of service tax and provident fund.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm in civil construction, challenged additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on machine hire charges and freight, and under Section 43B for unpaid service tax and provident fund. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had confirmed these additions, totaling Rs. 1,26,19,795 and Rs. 5,33,602 respectively.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted if the payee has already offered the income to tax, and whether payments of service tax and provident fund were eligible for deduction under Section 43B.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Bhopal [in short referred to as the CIT (A)] dated 31.12.2014 arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 18.03.2013 framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. ITA No.158/Ind/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Nutech Construction
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal;
“1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the order passed is vitiated on several grounds hence the same may
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 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 →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- 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