DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. FIRST ADVANTAGE P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 538/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 June 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds raised by both the revenue and the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits.

What were the facts?

The ITAT was hearing cross-appeals by the revenue and assessee concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The core of the dispute involved the disallowance of software expenses due to non-deduction of TDS.

What were the issues?

Whether software expenses were liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS, and whether such fees constituted professional or technical services under Section 194J.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: DR Assessee by :
Hearing: 19.06.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 538/Mum/2017
C.O.No. 120/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These cross appeals by the revenue and assessee are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-20/Addl.CIT-12(2)/IT-120/2013-14 dated 28.10.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9(1), Mumbai (in short ‘ACIT’) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 20.01.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the grounds raised before CIT(A) i.e. Ground Nos.4, 5 & 6, which reads as under:

“4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing software expenses of ₹ 82,65,724/- on the ground that no tax has been deducted at source. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in not considering the submission of the appellant in this regard.

5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing software expenses of ₹9,02,966/- on the ground that TDS is not deducted adequately.

6. Without prejudice and in alternate, the appellant submits that the learned Assessing Officer ought to have granted depreciation on software licenses treated as capital expenditure.”

3.

Similarly, he draw our attention to the grounds raised by the revenue which reads as under:-

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to ₹91,68,690/-. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to observe that there was also alternate addition made on account of non-deduction of TDS aggregating to ₹91,68,690/-. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to observe that the software license fee was in the nature of fees for professional or technical services covered under section 194J of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4. Finally, Ld. Counsel took us through the order of CIT(A) and argued that none of the above referred grounds are adjudicated by CIT(A). He only requested that let the matter go back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and accordingly, the C.O. of the assessee and the appeal of revenue both can be set aside.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. D.R. did not object and agreed with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated these issues.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the order of CIT(A) that the above raised issues have not at all been adjudicated. Hence, we restore this matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the above referred issues and decide according to law.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee both are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19-06-2018. AadoSa kI AadoSa kI Gaao AadoSa kI AadoSa kI GaaoGaao GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk YaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk YaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 19.06.2018 kao kI YaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk kao kI kao kI ga[ kao kI ga[ ga[- . ga[

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 →