DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad v. Bloom Dekor Ltd
[Citation -2016-LL-0926-21]

Citation 2016-LL-0926-21
Appellant Name DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad
Respondent Name Bloom Dekor Ltd.
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/09/2016
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags clarificatory and retrospective in nature
Bot Summary: The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the disallowance u s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.88.35 lacs despite the fact that the TDS deducted from November, 2006 to February, 2007 was paid on 31.05.2007 instead of 31.03.2007 as per the applicable provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) for AY 2007-08. The CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) with regard to payment of TDS have not been amended retrospectively but amended w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Ld. CIT(A) observing these undisputed facts and relying on ITAT judgment in the case SMC-ITA No.3114 Ahd 2013 DCIT vs. Bloom Dekor Ltd AY : 2007-08 2 of ITO v.s Sanjay Gandalal Patel in ITA No.2826 Ahd 2011 dated 23.03.2012 for AY 2008-09, which in turn relied on the judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creators. The issue in question stood decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Omprakash R. Chaudhary, reported in 2015 57 taxmann.com 38, by holding as under:- 18. From the discussion held hereinabove, we answer the substantial question of law raised in these appeals in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by holding the amendment made in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2010, as retrospective in operation, having effect from 1st April 2005 i.e., from the date of insertion of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Resultantly, we hold that the Tribunal rightly decided the said issue following the Calcutta High Court s decision in case of Virgin Creations by holding that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) by the CIT(A) even for the amount for which the TDS had been deducted before 1st March 2005, holding amendment brought on 1st April 2010 as retrospective in nature. Respectfully following the Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Omprakash R. Chaudhary, it is held that the amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) introduced by the Finance Act, 2010 is of clarificatory and retrospective in nature, applicable from 01.04.2005.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER . ITA No. 3114 Ahd 2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 DCIT, Bloom Dekor Ltd., Circle-1, Vs 2nd Floor, Sumel, Opp. GNFC Ahmedabad Tower, SG Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380059 PAN : AAACB 6221 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Rahul Kumar, Sr DR Assessee by : Shri Jaimin R. Dave, Advocate Date of Hearing : 26 09 2016 Date of Pronouncement: 26 09 2016 ORDER This appeal by Revenue is directed against order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad dated 30.10.2013 for AY 2007-08. 2. Following grounds are raised:- 1. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting disallowance u s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.88.35 lacs despite fact that TDS deducted from November, 2006 to February, 2007 was paid on 31.05.2007 instead of 31.03.2007 as per applicable provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) for AY 2007-08. 2. CIT(A) has not appreciated fact that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) with regard to payment of TDS have not been amended retrospectively but amended w.e.f. 01.04.2010. 3. Ld. DR relied on order of ld. Assessing Officer. 4. Ld. Counsel for assessee, on other hand, contends that it is undisputed that TDS amounts in question were paid on 31.05.2007, i.e., much before due date of filing of return in question. Ld. CIT(A) observing these undisputed facts and relying on ITAT judgment in case SMC-ITA No.3114 Ahd 2013 DCIT vs. Bloom Dekor Ltd AY : 2007-08 2 of ITO v.s Sanjay Gandalal Patel in ITA No.2826 Ahd 2011 dated 23.03.2012 for AY 2008-09, which in turn relied on judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Virgin Creators. issue in question stood decided in favour of assessee by decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Omprakash R. Chaudhary, reported in [2015] 57 taxmann.com 38 (Gujarat), by holding as under:- 18. From discussion held hereinabove, we answer substantial question of law raised in these appeals in favour of assessee and against Revenue by holding amendment made in Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 2010, as retrospective in operation, having effect from 1st April 2005 i.e., from date of insertion of Section 40(a)(ia) of Act. 19. Resultantly, we hold that Tribunal rightly decided said issue following Calcutta High Court s decision in case of Virgin Creations (supra) by holding that disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) by CIT(A) even for amount for which TDS had been deducted before 1st March 2005, holding amendment brought on 1st April 2010 as retrospective in nature. 5. I have heard rival contentions, perused material available on record and gone through orders of lower authorities. Respectfully following Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in case of CIT vs. Omprakash R. Chaudhary (supra), it is held that amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) introduced by Finance Act, 2010 is of clarificatory and retrospective in nature, applicable from 01.04.2005. In view thereof, there is no infirmity in order of ld. CIT(A) which is upheld and thus, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 6. In result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Court on 26th September, 2016 at Ahmedabad. Sd - R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Ahmedabad; Dated 26 09 2016 *Biju T. , ITAT, Ahmedabad (Dy. Asstt.Registrar) TRUE COPY BY ORDER, Guard file. 6. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad , , 5. CIT(A) ) ( 4. Concerned CIT 3. Respondent. 2. Appellant 1. Copy of Order forwarded to : 3 AY : 2007-08 DCIT vs. Bloom Dekor Ltd SMC-ITA No.3114 Ahd 2013 DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad v. Bloom Dekor Ltd
Report Error