ACE ENGINEERS,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable if the payment is not outstanding at the year-end. However, since the assessee did not provide evidence of outstanding balances, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee made payments to M/s. Nachiar Steels for fabrication work. The Assessing Officer disallowed these payments under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable when the payment is not outstanding at the close of the financial year, and the need for the assessee to provide evidence for such non-outstanding status.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT139 citing136 ITD 23 · 2012 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI V. DURGA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These two appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore, dated 17.11.2014 for the above assessment years. Since the issue in these two appeals is common in nature, hence these appeals are combined, I.T.A.Nos. 55 & 56/Mds/2015 :- 2 -: heard together, and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.
The sole grievance of the assessee in these appeals is with regard to disallowance made u/s.40a(ia) of the Act. Since the issue is common in nature in both appeals, we consider the facts as narrated in for adjudication.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was carrying on fabrication of equipments and heavy structural an other custom built machineries on job order basis. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of �66,59,517/- being payments made by the assessee to M/s. Nachiar Steels on the ground that no TDS was made by the assessee as required u/s.194C of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing the claim made by the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) and judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd in of 2013 dated 09.7.2013 held that sec 40(a)(ia) is not applicable when there is I.T.A.Nos. 55 & 56/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: no outstanding balance at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment yea in respect of these payment. However, the assessee has not brought on record, the details of outstanding expenses or schedule of sundry creditors showing whether the impugned amount is outstanding at the end of the close of the previous year relevant to the assessment year either in the name of the party or outstanding expenses. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to verify the claim of the assessee and the assessee shall place necessary evidence in support of its claim.
Further, we make it clear that if the impugned amount is not outstanding at the end of the close of the assessment year in respect of the expenses either as outstanding expenses or as sundry creditors, this amount cannot be disallowed. This ground is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos.55 & 56/Mds/2015 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026