Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax1 And Theapex Court Concurred With The Views Expressed By Calcutta High Court.we, Therefore, Set Aside The Order Of Itat Pronounced On

MEERAMAHESHJADHAV Digitallysigned by1/2MEERAMAHESHJADHAVDate:2022.02.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY15:40:05+0530ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.39 OF 2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-17 ….Appellant V/s.M/s Orient Transport Co. …Respondent ---- Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED : 2[nd] FEBRUARY 2022 P.C. : 1Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar. 2The substantial question of law proposed is, whether the Tribunal wascorrect in holding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income TaxAct 1961 are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which arepayable as on date 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked todisallow which had been actually paid during the previous year, withoutdeduction of TDS.? 3Mr. Suresh Kumar states that ITAT came to the conclusion that isimpugned, relying upon a decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case ofMerilyn Shipping & Transport, 136 ITD 23. Mr. Suresh Kumar sates thatCalcutta High Court disagreed with this view of the Special Bench of ITAT,whereas Allahabad High Court concurred. All these were considered by theApex Court in Palam Gas Service Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax1 and theApex Court concurred with the views expressed by Calcutta High Court.We, therefore, set aside the order of ITAT pronounced on 5[th] July 2016 1. (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) impugned in this appeal and remand the matter to ITAT to considerrespondent’s appeal afresh by taking into account the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Palam Gas Service (Supra). 4Appeal disposed. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)