2017 (9) TMI 1214 - AT - Income Tax

Short deduction of tds - Allocable Capex Cost which means the cost of seats blocked by each business unit - TDS at 10% u/s 194I OR 2% u/s 194C - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that - Basing on the decisions of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (Calcutta) High Court (2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) and M/s Solutions Infosystems (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 2013 (12) TMI 1531 - ITAT DELHI CIT (A) held that Section 40(a)(ia) has no application in respect of short deduction of tax. The finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is based on binding precedents, unassailable and, therefore, we confirm the same. Insofar as the observations of the Ld. CIT (A) as to the deductibility of tax at 10%, the assessee is at liberty to put forth their contentions before the AO (TDS) in appropriate proceedings. With this view of the matter, we dismissed the appeal and cross objection.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the deletion of an addition of ? 92,46,742 made under section 40(a)(ia) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified.
2. Whether the payment in question was for the use of land/building requiring tax deduction at 10%.
3. Whether the short deduction of tax can invoke Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The first issue revolves around the deletion of an addition of ? 92,46,742 made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the amount in question was payment for the use of land/building, not falling under the purview of Section 40(a)(ia). The Revenue challenged this deletion, arguing that the payment was for the utilization of seats/workstations, necessitating tax deduction at 10%. However, the Tribunal, relying on precedents, upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 2: The second issue pertains to whether the payment in question was for the use of land/building, warranting tax deduction at 10%. The Assessing Officer contended that regardless of the nomenclature, the payment was essentially for the utilization of seats/workstations, necessitating tax deduction at 10% under section 194I of the Act. Conversely, the Assessee argued that the short deduction should not invoke Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) opined that the payment was for the use of land/building, and hence, tax at 10% was required. The Tribunal, however, allowed the Assessee to present their contentions before the TDS authority in appropriate proceedings.

Issue 3: The final issue addresses whether the short deduction of tax can trigger Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based their decision on binding precedents, including the Calcutta High Court and a Tribunal's decision, to conclude that Section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in cases of short deduction of tax. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed this finding, dismissing both the appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the Assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 40(a)(ia), clarified the nature of the payment for the use of land/building, and determined that short deduction of tax does not invoke Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.