CA. Naresh Jakhotia

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH “A” AHMEDABAD Before S/Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat, JM and D.C.Agrawal, AM Val ibhai Khanbhai Mankad, Prop. Abad Roadways, 35- A, Tasl im Society, Nr. Bibi Talav, Vatva, Ahmedabad. Vs. Dy. CIT (OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :- Shri A. C. Shah, AR Respondent by:- Shri Ani l Kumar, CIT, DR O R D E R Per D.C. Agrawal, Accountant Member. This is an appeal filed by the assessee raising following grounds :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.7,93,34,193/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has filed Form No.15J with CIT on 26.02.2009 instead of on or before 30th June, 2006 in as much the there is no failure to deduct tax at soure under section 194C since the assessee has received Form No.15-I from the sub-contractors before making payment to them. 1.1 There may be a failure to file Form No.15J in time but there is no failure to deduct tax at source. Therefore, ...

Disallowance of interest under s 40(a)(ia) The assessee’s claim that he had the declarations of the payees in the prescribed form before him at the time when the interest was paid, was not liable to deduct tax therefrom under s 194A and no disallowance can be made under s 40(a)(ia) is accepted in absence of any direct evidence produced by revenue — as held by MumTrib in Vipin P Mehta v ITO — In favour of: The Assessee ; ITA No. 3317 (Mum.) of 2010 : Assessment Year: 2006–2007 Decided on: 20 May 2011 Section 197A(1A) merely requires a declaration to be filed by the payee of the interest, and once it is filed the payer of the interest has no choice except to desist from deducting tax from the interest. Vipin P. Mehta v ITO ITAT, Mumbai ITA No. 3317 (Mum.) of 2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 R.V. Easwar, President and R.K. Panda, AM Decided on: 20 May 2011 Counsel appeared: Satish R. Mody for the appellant Vijay Shankar for the respondent Order R.V. Easwar, President 1. This is an appeal by ...

, – “ ”, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [ . . , -, ! " , - ] [Before Hon’ble Shri S.V. Mehrotra, AM & Hon’ble Shri Mahavir Singh, JM "# / I.T.A No. 1753/Kol/2009 !$% &/'Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s. Capital Transport Corporation -vs.- Income Tax Officer/Ward-56(3) Of India, Kolkata [PAN : AABFC 9559 K] Kolkata. [ )* /Appellant] [,-)*/Respondent] )*/ For the Appellant : Shri S. M. Surana ,-)*/ For the Respondent : Shri S. K. Roy - ./ORDER . . , - Per S. V. Mehrotra, A. M. The assessee has preferred this appeal for assessment year 2006-07 against order of Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 21.08.2009. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under :- 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing lorry hire payment of Rs.24,74,376/- U/s.40(a)(ia) of the...

ITO Vs Rajesh Kr Garg (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata I.T.A No. 532/Kol/2011 Assessment Year: 2006-07 ORDER This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata in Appeal No.546/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/Wd-56(3)/08-09 dated 17.01.2011. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-56(3), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2006-07 vide his order dated 31.12.2008. 2. The first issue in this appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C(3) sub-clause (i) of the Act inspite of non-filing of Form No. 15J under Rule 29D of I. T. Rules, 1962. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1:“1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting addition of Rs.28,01,585/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I. T. Act, 1961 in spite of non filing of Form No. 15J as required under th...