DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

6. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer disallowed these reimbursed expenses under Section 40(a)(ia), holding that the appellant had failed to deduct TDS on payments made to the related entities and thus, these payments were disallowable as expenses in the appellant’s hands. 7. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed this decision, accepting that these payments

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S.CHANDIMATA MANAGEMENT PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT was of the view that as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) any amount payable to a contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIIB 3 and if such tax is not being deducted during the previous year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. EMC LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 194C of the Act when the said provision has nothing to do with the accrual of income in the hands of the recipients when the assessee under the law was not entitled to claim payment until fulfilment of the terms of contract and expiry of the period for which the retention money was withheld and, as such, under