M.A. FABRICS,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO for fresh decision. This was based on the fact that the recipients of the payments had offered the income in their respective tax returns and considering a coordinate bench's decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee made payments for job charges, and the AO disallowed a portion of these payments under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted when the recipients have offered the income in their returns, and whether the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM
O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Mumbai, for the assessment year 2005-2006, confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s.40(1)(ia) of the I.T.Act, amounting to Rs.17,56,817/-.
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the course of scrutiny assessment the AO asked for disallowing payment made for job charges amounting to Rs.26,65,480/-. In response to the same, the assessee submitted the copies of certificates issued by the AO u/s.194C(4) in favour of job workers for lower deduction of tax. After considering assessee’s contention the AO rejected the disallowance of Rs.17,56,817/- in respect of job workers, who had furnished certificate 2 u/s.194C to the effect that tax is to be deducted at 0.25% of the amount exceeding Rs.5 lakhs.
By the impugned order, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO, against which assessee is in further appeal before us.
It was contended by ld. AR that all the job works duly included their payment made by assessee in their trading account and had also filed their return. Thus there is no loss of revenue. Our attention was also invited to the assessment framed in the case of job workers duly incorporating the income received by the assessee. It was inter alia contended by assessee that in view of the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act 2012, and in view of the fact that the recipients of the interest have already included the income embedded in these payments in their tax returns filed under section 139, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked in this case. It was also contended that even though this proviso is stated to be effective 1 st April 2013, since the amendment in “declaratory and curative in nature, and, therefore, it should be given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004”.
We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below and found that similar issue has been decided by Agra Bench of the Tribunal in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, ITA No.337/Agra/2013, order dated 29-5-2013, wherein in similar circumstances matter was restored back to the file of AO. Keeping in view
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 →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026