Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (11) TMI 164 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS on provisions made for expenses.
2. Non-deduction of TDS on the purchase of traded goods.
3. Non-deduction of TDS on the purchase of packing material.
4. Non-deduction of TDS on clinical trial expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Tax and Interest for Non-Deduction of TDS on Provisions Made for Expenses:
- The proceedings under section 133A were conducted on the assessee's premises on 8.9.2008, and the AO passed the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) on 30.12.2008.
- The AO determined that the assessee made provisions for expenses amounting to Rs.10,01,98,450/- without deducting TDS, leading to a short deduction of Rs.2,06,45,686/-.
- The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision regarding the provision made but tax not deducted, determining tax and interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
- The assessee contended that the provision for expenses was made at the end of the year due to multifarious locations and transactions, and TDS was deducted when actual payments were made.
- The ITAT referred to the case of Industrial Development Bank of India vs. Income Tax Officer, 107 ITR 45 (Mum), where it was held that TDS provisions are not applicable if the payee is not identifiable at the time of making the provision.
- The ITAT concluded that since the payee was not identifiable at the time of making the provision and the entire provision was written back the next year with TDS deducted on actual payments, the provisions of TDS were not applicable.
- The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to delete the demand raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).

2. Non-Deduction of TDS on the Purchase of Traded Goods:
- The CIT (A) concluded that the contract with third parties was for the purchase of traded goods and not a works contract.
- The CIT (A) referred to the decisions in the cases of Novartis HealthCare Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ITO (TDS), where it was held that TDS is not required to be deducted on the purchase of traded goods.
- The ITAT affirmed the CIT (A)'s order, agreeing that the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act are not applicable to the purchase of finished/traded goods.

3. Non-Deduction of TDS on the Purchase of Packing Material:
- The CIT (A) referred to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in BDA Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), 281 ITR 99 (Bom.), which held that TDS is not required to be deducted on the purchase of packing material.
- The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s order, confirming that the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act are not applicable to the purchase of packing material.

4. Non-Deduction of TDS on Clinical Trial Expenses:
- The CIT (A) directed the AO to verify the breakup of clinical trial expenses provided by the assessee, which included items on which TDS was not deductible.
- For the balance expenditure, the CIT (A) held that the payments were in the nature of professional fees and TDS should have been deducted under section 194J.
- The ITAT agreed with the CIT (A)'s order, confirming the applicability of section 194J to the clinical trial expenses and directing the AO to calculate the TDS liability accordingly.

Conclusion:
- The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee regarding the non-deduction of TDS on provisions made for expenses.
- The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the CIT (A)'s orders on the non-deduction of TDS on the purchase of traded goods, packing material, and clinical trial expenses.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates