2019 (9) TMI 852 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses paid to TACO u/s 40A(2)(b) - Administrative Support Services paid to holding company - HELD THAT - We find that Ld.CIT(A) after relying on the decision in the case of assessee s sister concern i.e., Tata Johnson Automotive Ltd., 2016 (4) TMI 963 - ITAT PUNE and other decisions referred to in her order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case in the year under consideration and in the case of assessee s sister concern i.e., Tata Johnson Automotive Ltd., (supra) nor has pointed out any fallacy in the findings of Ld.CIT(A). Further the Tribunal s decision in the case of Tata Johnson Automotive Ltd., (supra) has been upheld by Hon ble Bombay High Court INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) P. LTD. 2008 (8) TMI 208 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In view of the aforesaid facts, ground of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Administrative Support Services under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Pune, related to the assessment year 2009-10.
2. The Assessee, engaged in battery manufacturing, filed its return of income declaring a loss. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total loss. The issue in question pertains to the disallowance of Administrative Support Services claimed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
3. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the Assessee had paid administrative service charges to its holding company and another company. The AO found the payments were covered under Sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act and asked for justification. The Assessee claimed the payments were pursuant to an agreement for administrative support services. However, the AO concluded that the Assessee failed to substantiate the services availed and disallowed the expenses claimed.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that a similar issue was decided in favor of the Assessee's sister concern by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court. Relying on these decisions, the CIT(A) decided the issue in favor of the Assessee.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the record, found no distinguishing feature in the facts of the present case and the earlier decision in favor of the Assessee's sister concern. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on precedent and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the decision in favor of the Assessee regarding the disallowance of expenses under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key details and legal reasoning behind the judgment regarding the disallowance of Administrative Support Services under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.