K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

ITA 19/RAN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 April 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Kolkata Bench in Dipak Parui vs JCIT, held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, effective from 01/04/2015, restricts disallowance on non-deduction of TDS to 30% of the amount. Therefore, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was restricted to 30% of ₹3,00,000/-, amounting to ₹90,000/-. The ground related to diesel expenses was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a private limited company running a hospital, appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14. The appeal involved disallowance of ₹3,00,000/- for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C and confirmation of an addition of ₹26,478/- for diesel expenses due to non-production of bills. The assessee also had a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS should be restricted to 30% as per the amendment effective from 01/04/2015, and whether the addition for diesel expenses was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri P. Anand, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21/04/2025Pronounced: 21/04/2025

PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M.

1.

This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribag [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 14/09/2020 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. In this appeal, the appellant has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

For that the learned officers below have erred in making addition of the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- especially in view of the fact that there was no agreement to make any payment under Section 194C and therefore provision of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct TDS then

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →