M/S. SIDDI VINAYAK SAREES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 45(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) is curative and retrospective in nature. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 30% of the amount paid without TDS.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of Rs. 8,96,450/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee argued that a retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) should limit the disallowance to 30%.
What were the issues?
Whether the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) regarding disallowance for non-deduction of TDS is retrospective, and if so, what is the extent of disallowance applicable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B(SMC
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata dated 16.08.2018 for AY 2006-07.
The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.8,96,450/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ground no.2 of this appeal, which is as under:
M/s. Siddi Vinayak Sarees, AY:2006-07
2. For that even otherwise the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) should have been restricted to 30% since the amendment to the section was applicable with retrospective effect.
According to Ld. AR, 30% of the disallowance may be sustained in view of the amendment brought in by Finance Act No. 2 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been held to be curative in nature and hence, retrospective by the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Punjab Infrastructure & Development Board Ltd., dated 30.09.2015. The Ld. DR objected to the relief prayed by the assessee, and according to him, the amendment is only w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and can be only prospective and, therefore, the disallowance should be sustained.
Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case it is noted that pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction the AO after examining the veracity of the vouchers submitted by the assessee against the payments made to various persons found out that payments have been made without deducting TDS and has found that there is no credence of the vouchers produced by the assessee so, he disallowed the expenditure claimed to the tune of Rs.8,96,450/- by invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Before us, the Ld. AR taking note of the amendment brought in by the Finance Act No. 2 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act prayed that 30% of the disallowance may be sustained and thus partial relief may be granted to the assessee. It has been brought to my notice that the ITAT Chandigarh Bench has held in the case of Punjab Infrastructure & Development Board Ltd. (supra) that though the aforesaid amendment has been brought w.e.f. 01.04.2015 it is curative in nature and so retrospective in operation and so following the ratio laid by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, I am inclined to allow the said prayer of the Ld. AR of the assessee, therefore, I restrict the disallowance to 30% of Rs. 8,96,450/-. The AO is directed to give relief in accordance to law as per the aforesaid direction.
M/s. Siddi Vinayak Sarees, AY:2006-07
The last ground is general in nature and therefore, no adjudication is required and, hence, the same is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd April, 2019.
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 Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026