| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3833 (Ctk-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 40(a)(ia)
Tribunal in the case of Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2020 TaxPub(DT) 1197 (Ctk-Trib)] held that if a statute is curative of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended and there was no reason to disagree with the lower authorities' conclusion quoting assessee's failure in filing the relevant details, since legislature had itself amended section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 1-4-2015 restricting a disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only, therefore, AO was directed to restrict the 100% disallowance to the extent of 30%.
|
Business disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Amendment restricting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) to 30% - Whether retrospective in nature -
AO made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS by assessee. However, assessee relied on order of Tribunal in the case of Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 296/CTK/2018, Order, dated 26-11-2019 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1197 (Ctk-Trib) and submitted that Tribunal has restricted the disallowance to 30% as against 100% made by AO, therefore, in present case, disallowance made by AO under section 40(a)(ia) deserved to be reduced to 30%. Held: Issue was already decided by Tribunal in case of Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2020 TaxPub(DT) 1197 (Ctk-Trib)] wherein it was held that if a statute is curative of previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. Therefore there was no reason to disagree with lower authorities' conclusion quoting assessee's failure in filing relevant details. The fact also remains that legislature had itself amended Section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 1-4-2015 restricting a disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. Therefore, AO was directed to restrict the 100% disallowance to the extent of 30% only taking into account the actual claim of the assessee in its profit and loss account.
Followed:Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 296/CTK/2018, Order, dated 26-11-2019] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1197 (Ctk-Trib) Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7721 (Gau-Trib) Dipak Parui v. JCIT [ITA No. 767/Kol/2016, decided on 20-7-2018] Smt. Sonu Khandelwal v. ITO [ITA No. 597/JP/2013, dt. 13-5-2016] Shri Rajendra Yadav v. ITO 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1410 (Jp-Trib) CIT v. M/s. Calcutta Export Company (2018) 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2136 (SC) Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC) : 1997 TaxPub(DT) 1147 (SC) RB Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) : 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0387 (SC) CIT v. Chandulal Venichand (1994) 209 ITR 7 (Guj) : (1994) 73 Taxman 349 (Guj) : 1994 TaxPub(DT) 0917 (Guj-HC)Relied:Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7721 (Gau-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Partly In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2011-12
IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |