P.C. PROPERTIES,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 420/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 March 2018AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) after examining the rival submissions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s adjudication of the issue raised before it.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which affirmed the addition of Rs. 15,96,412/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the expenses were not outstanding as of March 31, 2007, and that the disallowance was made on debatable issues.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses paid during the previous year without TDS deduction can be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) if they were not outstanding as of the close of the financial year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

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, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 14.03.2018Pronounced: 23.03.2018

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), inter alia, on the following grounds:

1.

The order of the LAA is bad in law and not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The LAA failed to appreciate the stand taken by the appellant that the LAO had erred in passing a Suo Moto rectification order on debatable issues

3. The LAA failed to appreciate that the contentions of the appellant and erred in affirming the LAO's move of adding a sum of Rs.15,96,412/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though the expenses were not outstanding as on March 31, 2007 4. The LAA erred in not considering the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd (ITA No. 122/2013). The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court stated that 'the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were applicable only to amount of expenditure which were payable as on 31st March, of every year and it could not be invoked to disallow expenses which had been actually paid during previous year without deduction of TDS'. Further, the LAA erred in not considering that the SLP filed by the Revenue .against the decision of •Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd is being dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of DCIT Circle — I, Udupi v. Ananda Marakala [2014] 48 taxmann.com 402. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that the dismissal of the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd affirms that the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court shall :ye applicable to the appellant. On the above and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing your appellant prays your Honour to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and render justice.

2.

This appeal came up for hearing on 14.03.2018 but none appeared despite valid service of notice of hearing. I therefore had no option but to hear the appeal ex-parte and accordingly revenue was heard.

3.

I have carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) in the light of the rival submissions and I find that CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue raised before it in detail and since I do not find any infirmity therein, I confirm his order.

Page 3 of 3 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2018.

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 →