THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. HEWLETT PACKARD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/366/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01030108201617 August 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal was answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in a similar case. Therefore, the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted a disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance was related to non-remittance of TDS within the prescribed due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is attracted if the amount is paid in the next financial year even if TDS is not remitted by the due date.

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.366 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE

BANGALORE-560085.

2.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE

BANGALORE-560085.

... APPELLANTS

(BY Mr. M. DILIP, A/W SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.)

AND:

M/S. HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD., (ERSTWHILE HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA P. LTD.,) 24, SALARPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE PAN: AAACC9862F. ... RESPONDENT (BY Ms. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV., FOR Mr. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30-10-2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1136/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN

ITA NO.1136/BANG/2014 DATED:30-10-2015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BENGALURU & ETC.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel along with Mr.M.Dilip, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel for Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 17.10.2017 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance of sum of Rs.5,26,17,446/- made by Assessing Authority under Section 40(a)(ia) by holding that rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted if the amount is paid during the next year even when the Assessing Authority has disallowed the same as per the mandate of said section as the TDS is not remitted within the due date as prescribed under the Act which is against the provisions of the law?”

3.

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA Vs. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY’ (2018) 302 CTR 201 (SC).

4.

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial question of law framed by this Court in this

appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

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 →