CSV INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,TEYNAMPET CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the directors had included the salaries in their returns and paid taxes, and the assessee had obtained a certified Form 26A, the disallowance was not justified. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee paid salaries to its directors amounting to Rs. 22,32,000/- without deducting TDS. The CPC disallowed this amount, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing lack of authority to accept Form 26A.
What were the issues?
Whether salary paid to directors without TDS deduction is allowable if the directors have paid tax on such income and Form 26A is obtained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश /O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050224926(1) dated 28.02.2023. The return of income was processed and intimation u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- 2 - (hereinafter the ‘Act’) was issued by the DCIT, CPC Bangalore for the assessment year 2019-20 vide order dated 08.05.2020.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) disallowing salaries paid to the Directors amounting to Rs.22,32,000/- without deduction of TDS by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
Brief facts are that the assessee has paid salary to its directors to the tune of Rs.22,32,000/- without deduction of TDS. The CPC, Bangalore vide intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, disallowed this salary of Rs.22.32 lakhs paid to its Directors without deduction of TDS. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). But the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground, by holding that the CIT(A) has no authority under notification No.11/2016 to accept Form No.26A of the Act. The assessee claimed before CIT(A) that the Director included the salaries paid by the assessee in his return and paid taxes and for this, assessee requested the CIT(A) to permit it to file Form No.26A certified from an accountant under sub- rule of 31ACB of the Rules to give effect for rectification as the salary was paid to directors and accountant without deduction of TDS but the directors and the accountant have filed their income tax return and taxes have been paid by them.
We have gone through the order of CIT(A) and when it was confronted to ld. Senior DR, he only requested that let the assessee upload the Form 26A of the director and the accountant in the system before CPC, to whom the assessee has paid salary without deduction of TDS, has included the income in their respective return of income and paid taxes and assessee has obtained Form 26A certified from a Chartered Accountant under sub-rule 31ACB of the Act, nothing is left without verification, hence this is allowable salary. But the certificate can be verified by the AO. Hence, we remand this matter to the file of the AO for limited verification purpose and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024 at Chennai.
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 →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026