Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi: In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) for assessment year 2012-13 and for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively, the two-member bench of N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) quashed the disallowance/addition made by the Assessing Officer which was sustained by the CIT(A) and held that the second proviso Clause (i) of Section 40(a) and second proviso to clause (ia) of Section 40(a) were inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence, they had to be given retrospective effect.
The question for consideration is regarding disallowance under Clause (i) of Section 40(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Race Promotion Contract (‘RPC’) fees paid by Formula One World Championship Ltd. to United Kingdom without deducting the tax. It is the specific case of the assessee that no disallowance could be me made on RPC fees since the payee Formula One World Championship Ltd.(‘FOWC’) had already been assessed on relevant income and tax thereon had been paid by Formula One Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., Noida. World Championship Ltd. directly. The CIT opined that no disallowance could be made in respect of RPC fees because the relevant income had been declared and assessed in the hands of the payee and tax thereon had been paid. However, CIT has accepted that disallowance should be restricted to the chargeable sum comprised in the grossed RPC fees as assessed in the hands of FOWC. Thus, CIT directed the disallowance.
The Tribunal opined that no part of the RPC fee paid by the assessee is liable to be disallowed under clause (i) of Section 40(a) because the second proviso Clause (i) of Section 40(a) has been inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2020. The said proviso essentially provides that where the relevant income has been declared by the payee and tax thereon has been paid by him then no disallowance shall be made in the hands of the payer. This proviso is similar to the second proviso to clause (ia) of Section 40(a) which was inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2013. Both these provisos were inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence, they had to be given retrospective effect.
[Jaiprakash Associates Ltd v DCIT, I.T.A. No. 1257/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2012-13), decided on 13-03-2023]
*Order by: Yogesh Kumar U.S.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Assessee: Advocate Ashwani Kumar Garg;
For Department: CIT Ganga Dhar Panda.