Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
From the Courts »
 M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Investigation)
 Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 CST vs. Shri Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises (Bombay High Court)
 Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 Vs. Pavitra Commercial Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi Iv Vs. Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
 Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Vs. Nokia Solutions & Network India Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As, Nokia Siemens Network Pvt Ltd)
 SKY Light Hospitality Llp Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -28(1), New Delhi
 Tax outgo may rise for investors in companies undergoing M&A cases

M/s Rounak Enterprises,14C, Sunshishti, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai 400 072. Vs. A.C.I.T. Range 17(3), Mumbai.
August, 22nd 2014


                   ./I.T.A. No.6154 /Mum/2012
             (     /     Assessment Year : 2006-2007

M/s Rounak Enterprises,           /          A.C.I.T. Range 17(3),
14C, Sunshishti,                             Mumbai.
Saki Vihar Road,
Mumbai ­ 400 072.
     . / PAN : AAEFR0209E
 ( /Appellant)        ..                         (    / Respondent)

     Appellant by                 Shri Ajay R. Singh
     Respondent by :              Shri Durga Dutt
          / Date of Hearing                      : 17-06-2014
         /Date of Pronouncement : 20-08-2014

                            / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

      The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the
order of ld. CIT(A) 29, Mumbai dated 25-07-2012 agitating the confirmation of
levy of penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.
11,45,853/- of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of disallowance of labour
charges u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.    The A.O. observed that the assessee had deposited the Tax Deducted at
Sources (TDS) after the due date.       He therefore held that the expenditure
claimed by the assessee was not allowable due to late deposit of TDS and
accordingly disallowed the same. He also imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of
                                     2        ITA 6154/M/12

the Act holding that the assessee had made a wrong claim of expenditure
which was not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to late deposit of TDS,
hence it amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income. The
ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act
and hence the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.    We have heard the arguments of ld. Representatives of both the sides
and also perused the relevant material available with us. Admittedly, in the
case in hand it reveals that the assessee though had not deposited the TDS
before the due date as was prescribed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, however, he
had deposited the TDS before the due date of filing of return. Admittedly, the
section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been amended by the Finance Act, (2010) to
the effect that the due date for deposit of tax will be the due date as
prescribed in sub section (1) of section 139 of the Act i.e due date for filing of
return of income. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee has
invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of CIT vs. Naresh Kumar (2013) 262 CTR (Del) 389 wherein the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court has held that the amendment made to section 40(a)(ia) of
the Act vide Finance Act 2010 which states that the due date of deposit of
TDS will be the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is applicable retrospectively.
While holding so, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has relied upon another
decision in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar (ITA No. 65/2013) and further
in the case of CIT vs. Jagannath Steel Corporation to hold that the where the
statute is curative or merely declaratory of previous law, retrospective
operation is generally intended. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court and in the absence of any decision to the contrary of our
Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, it is to be held that the
amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act made vide Finance Act, 2010 is
applicable retrospectively and it cannot be said to be a case of violation of
provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.      Even otherwise, the A.O. has
                                             3       ITA 6154/M/12

      disallowed the claim of the assessee because of late deposit of TDS, it cannot
      be said to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income or
      concealment of income on the part of the assessee. Merely because the claim
      of the assessee has been disallowed that itself cannot be said to be a case of
      concealment of particulars of its income.        Under such circumstances, the
      imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is otherwise not sustainable in
      law. In view of our above observation, the penalty so imposed by the A.O. is
      ordered to be deleted.

      4.      In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

             Order pronounced in the open court on 20-08-2014.


                   - sd/-                                             sd/-
          (B.R. BASKARAN)                                      (SANJAY GARG)
       ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                     JUDICIAL MEMBER
                              Dated 20-08-2014

       . ../ RK , Sr. PS

                /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.    / The Appellant
2.     / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A) ­29,, Mumbai
4.      / CIT ­17, Mumbai
5.             ,     ,  / DR, ITAT, Mumbai D Bench

6.     / Guard file.
                                                                               / BY ORDER,

                             //True Copy//
                                                          /  (Dy./Asstt.          Registrar)
                                                               ,   / ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions