2014 (4) TMI 235 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act - Reimbursement of CHA charges paid to C & F agent Held that - The Tribunal was of the view that the expenses were incurred by the agent on behalf of the assessee for transportation and other charges, which has been spelt out in the bill itself including the commission to the agent - the relation between the assessee and the agent is principal and agent - so far as the obligation to deduct tax at source from the payment of transport charges and other charges is concerned, the same was complied with by the agent, who had made payment on its behalf - the circular relied upon by the Revenue that it is the liability of the assessee as principal agent to deduct the TDS will not be applicable and the circular would be applicable for payment made to principal to principal thus, the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order in deleting the disallowance there is no need for the interference in the decision of the Tribunal Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The appellant-Revenue appealed against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision to quash the Assessing Officer's order deleting the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. The expenses in question were Rs. 6,93,372 for reimbursement of CHA charges and Rs. 76,00,509 for reimbursement of consignment agent expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses for non-deduction of TDS. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deductions, stating that TDS was already deducted by the agent for the CHA charges and that the consignment agent expenses were incurred on behalf of the assessee without any profit element. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the agent acted on behalf of the assessee and had already deducted TDS. The Tribunal also highlighted that the circular on TDS liability applied to principal-agent relationships, not principal-principal transactions. The Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law arose.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to confirm the Commissioner's order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Court found no reason to interfere with the decision, as no error was committed by the Tribunal in confirming the Commissioner's order. The Court stated that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal, leading to its dismissal.