9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 232 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C - C & F agents services - reimbursement of expenses - services procured from others to fulfil his own contract - It was submitted that many of the payments made by C and F agents are even not liable to TDS at all which include certain Government payments and on foreign companies directly on which no TDS is deductible - Held that learned CIT(A) was justified in holding that on certain payments the provisions of ss. 194C and 195 were not applicable and, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS - Decided in favor of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). 2. Admission of additional evidence in the form of Board Circular No. 723. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia): The Department objected to the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 1,60,41,692 made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia). The AO concluded that the assessee deducted tax only on agency charges paid to C and F agents and not on the gross amount, thus proposing disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) as per section 194C. The assessee argued that TDS was not required on reimbursements of actual expenditures incurred by the C and F agent on its behalf, citing that these agents acted as pure agents and provided detailed submissions to support this claim. The CIT(A) found that many payments made by the assessee to C and F agents were not liable to TDS, including payments to non-resident shipping companies and government entities. The CIT(A) also noted that TDS had already been deducted by the C and F agents on certain payments. The CIT(A) relied on CBDT Circular No. 723, which clarified that provisions of section 194C and 195 do not apply to payments made to shipping agents of non-resident shipowners or charterers. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, concluding that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable to the assessee's case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the payments made by the assessee were either not liable to TDS or had already been subjected to TDS by the agents. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined each payment and found that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on reimbursements. The Tribunal also referenced decisions from various Benches of the Tribunal supporting the view that TDS is not deductible on reimbursements of expenses. 2. Admission of Additional Evidence in the Form of Board Circular No. 723:The Department filed an additional ground stating that the CIT(A) was not justified in admitting additional evidence in the form of Board Circular No. 723 without affording the AO an opportunity to respond. The Tribunal rejected this ground, stating that a Board circular issued by the CBDT cannot be considered additional evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly applied Circular No. 723, which clarified that provisions of sections 194C and 195 do not apply to certain payments made to shipping agents of non-resident shipowners or charterers. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was justified in considering Circular No. 723, which was directly applicable to the facts of the case. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had incorrectly applied Circular No. 715, which was superseded by Circular No. 723. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reliance on Circular No. 723 to delete the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,60,41,692 under section 40(a)(ia) and affirming that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting and relying on Board Circular No. 723.
|
