Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd on 26 August, 2015

08.03.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). Under second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act, there are statutory provisions to the effect that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 201; then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso. The question before us, is whether second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is prospective in application or is to be applied retrospectively. On the aforesaid question before us, we have the benefit of guidance from the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) in which the Hon'ble High Court held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005.

Hindustan Plywood Company (Regd.), New ... vs Assessee on 19 February, 2016

and Hindustan Plywood Company vs. ITO (supra). The issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, in view of these precedents. Therefore, we also hold, respectfully following theses precedents, that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act is curative in nature and has retrospectively. Accordingly, in the fitness of things, and also as both Page 5 of 7 ITA No.- 2885/Del/2016.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next