ZENITH ERECTORS PVT. LTD.,HALDIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 27, HALDIA, HALDIA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the first issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether payees had offered the income for assessment. For the second issue concerning interest paid to a PSU, the disallowance was deleted. The third issue regarding proportionate interest disallowance was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged disallowances made by the lower authorities for non-deduction of TDS on various payments and interest. The assessee admitted non-deduction of TDS but argued that the payees had paid taxes, making the disallowance invalid under the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable when payees have already paid taxes, and whether interest paid to a PSU without TDS deduction is disallowable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.369 citing377 ITR 635 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- (2007) 288 ITR 379 (Del) and CIT v. Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd.16 citing320 ITR 671 · 2010 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata’s order dated 09.02.2017 passed in case No.163. 165 & 176 CIT(A)-7/Kol/Circle-27/16-17, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee’s first substantive ground challenges both the lower authorities’ action disallowing various payments amounting to ₹2,07,27,715/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of its failure in deducting TDS thereupon.
Zenith Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia Page 2 We make it clear at the outset that there is no dispute about the non-deduction of TDS on the above payments. The assessee is fair enough to this effect. It files before us a copy of lists of payees details their PAN, total bill and TDS details during the course of hearing. Learned counsel quotes u/s. 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso stipulating non application of impugned statutory provision in case of the payees concerned having assessed to tax not making it as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) holds that sec. 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 applies with retrospective effect being curative in nature. We draw support therefrom and restore the instant first issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the payees in issue as to whether they have duly recorded payments in issue as income followed by assessment thereof as per law as stipulated in sec. 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso r.w.s. 201(1) 1st proviso of the Act. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary details within three effective opportunities of hearing before the Assessing Officer. This first substantive ground is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms.
Next comes assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to delete second disallowance of interest payment amounting to ₹13,42,902/- paid to M/s Indian Oil Co. Ltd without deducting TDS. There is no issue herein as well that assessee has not deducted any TDS regarding the impugned interest payment. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 671 (Del) has upheld the tribunal’s decision presuming that if the payee / deductee is a Government of India undertaking, it cannot be presumed to have not paid tax on the receipts in issue. Learned Departmental Representative is fair enough in not disputing the fact that deducteee herein M/s Indian Oil Co. Ltd. is a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking. We draw support from the above legal position and delete the impugned disallowance / addition in principle. We therefore conclude that assessee’s liability to pay interest is only upto the date of filing of return at its PSU/payee’s behest as per the said case law. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed
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 Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026