ITAT bound by non-jurisdiction High Courts decisions also

By | July 5, 2016


I.T.A. No.: 106/RPR/2016 Assessment year: 2010-11

R K P Company ………….…………….Appellant


Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Korba ……..….…….…Respondent

S. 40(a)(ia): When there are conflicting judgements of non-jurisdiction High Courts, the Tribunal is not permitted to choose based on its perception of what the correct law is because it will amount to sitting in judgement over the High Courts’ views. Instead, it has to follow the view which is in favour of the assessee even if it believes that this view is not the correct law. Second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) inserted by FA 2013 should be treated as retrospectively applicable from 1st April 2005

It will be wholly inappropriate for us to choose views of one of the High Courts based on our perceptions about reasonableness of the respective viewpoints, as such an exercise will de facto amount to sitting in judgment over the views of the High Courts something diametrically opposed to the very basic principles of hierarchical judicial system. We have to, with our highest respect of both the Hon’ble High Courts, adopt an objective criterion for deciding as to which of the Hon’ble High Court should be followed by us. We find guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [(1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC)]. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted”. This principle has been consistently followed by the various authorities as also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself

Download Complete Judgement

Related Post

  1. Non payment of equalization levy : Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ib)
  2. Section 40a(ia) Case laws
  3. Section 40(a)(ia) applicable only to Outstanding expenses “payable” at the end of year :ITAT CHENNAI
  4. Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) introduced w.e.f 1.4.2013 is prospective
  5. section 40(a)(ia) applies to the Amount Paid and Payable
  6. section 40(a)(ia) Payer not liable for TDS default due to retrospective amendments
  7. Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable retrospectively
  8. section 40(a)(ia) No disallowance of expense if Income is Exempt
  9. Even Tax Deducted under wrong provision will attract dis allowance of 40(a)(ia)
  10. 40(a)(ia) TDS default based on opinion of CA was bona fide mistake , No Penalty
  11. 40(a)(ia) Disallowance for TDS default if books rejected by AO
  12. payable under section 40(a)(ia)
  13. No disallowance of section 40(a)(i) if Non resident has no permanent establishment in India
  14. TDS on Provision for Expenses

Leave a Reply