D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S B.S.SEA FOODS PVT LTD, NORTH 24 PARGANAS
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance, following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The delay in depositing TDS was considered acceptable if paid before the return filing due date.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 10 lakh under Section 40(a)(ia) for delayed payment of TDS on labour charges. The assessee had paid the TDS before the due date of filing the return.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is justified when TDS is paid before the due date of filing the return, even if deducted earlier.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.1,344 citing319 ITR 306 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT398 citing224 ITR 677 · 1997 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri N.V.Vasudevan
आदेश /O R D E R
PER P.M.Jagtap, Accountant Member:-
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata dated 19.12.2012 and in the solitary ground raised therein, the Revenue has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act to the extent of Rs.10 lakh for the delay on the part of assessee in the payment of tax deducted at source.
The assessee in the present is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.09.2009declaring total income of DCIT Cir-11,Kol. V. M/s B.S. Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 Rs.6,72,051/-. In the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 14.12.2011, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs.1,60,59,327/- after making addition inter alia on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.33 lakh for the delay on the part of the assessee in making payment of tax deducted at source from the labour charges paid to two parties namely – M/s S. Enterprise (P) Ltd. and M/s Z.A. Food Products. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance after having found that the tax deducted at source from the relevant payments made by the assessee during the year under consideration was paid by the assessee before due date of filing of return for the year under consideration. This relief give by the CIT(A) is disputed by the Revenue to the extent of Rs.10 lakh on the ground the corresponding taxes having been deducted from the said payments prior to March, 2009, assessee was required to deposit the same within the previous year under consideration.
We have heard arguments of both the sides and also perusing the relevant records. It is observed that the issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgin Creations (ITAT No. 302 of 2011) GA 3200/2011 dated 23.11.2011, wherein it was held that the tax deducted at source by the assessee during the period from April 2005 to March 2006 having been paid well before the due date of filing the return income for the relevant year, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not justified keeping in view the first proviso to Sec. 40(a)(ia) as amended by the Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 01.04.2010, which is applicable retrospectively. For this conclusion, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd., 224 ITR 677 (SC) and in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd.,. 319 ITR 306 (SC). Respectfully following the said decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of Hon'ble DCIT Cir-11,Kol. V. M/s B.S. Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 jurisdictional High Court in the case of Virgin Creations (supra), we uphold the impugned order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.10 lakh made by AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and dismiss the appeal of Revenue.
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 →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026