2015 (6) TMI 680 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) - rent payment made without deduction of TDS - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal has reached a concurrent finding of fact that the payment made by the respondent assessee to its holding company of ₹ 51.91 lacs is not rent but is merely a reimbursement of expenses. Consequently, the occasion to apply Section 195 of the Act does not arise. This concurrent finding of fact is not shown to be perverse. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration and the appeal seeks to challenge concurrent findings of fact. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to the order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Assessment Year 2008-09.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2008-09. The main issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of a payment made without deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had paid a certain amount towards the use of infrastructure to its holding company without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee contended that the payment was a reimbursement of expenses and not rent, hence not liable for TDS deduction.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the payment was indeed a reimbursement of expenses, citing a precedent to support the decision. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which also upheld that the payment was a reimbursement and not subject to TDS deduction.

4. The High Court concurred with the findings of the lower authorities, stating that the payment was a reimbursement of expenses and not rent. As a result, the court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasized that the concurrent finding of fact was not shown to be perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the nature of the payment and the application of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between reimbursement of expenses and actual rent payments to determine the applicability of TDS provisions.