9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify the details of expenditure and examine whether the payments were actual reimbursement of expenses pertaining to personnel deputed with the assessee company - However the AO shall restrict himself to the evidences which have been submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in accordance with law. - ITA No. 1950/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2011 - T.R. Sood, Asha Vijayaraghavan, JJ. Anandee Nath Misshra for the Appellant Shailesh S. Shah for the Respondent ORDER Asha Vijayaraghavan: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-21 for the Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. The facts of the case are that assessee-company was a joint venture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the assessee had paid only the cost incurred by the holding company. In absence of all these details it was not possible to accept the assessee's contention that the payments made were made for reimbursement. The AO thereafter discussed the term "Work" and "income comprised therein" by relying on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Associated Cement Co. vs CIT 201 ITR 435. The AO held that as per the provisions of Sec. 194C/194J the tax should have been deducted on the sums paid by the assessee company to its holding company towards the services of deputed personnel. Since the TDS was not paid, the AO disallowed the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) the AR of the assessee filed written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of reimbursement of expenditure, the provisions of TDS are not applicable. Therefore, disallowance made by the AO is hereby deleted." 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Shailesh S. Shah argued that the payments were pure reimbursement towards sharing of deputed personnel cost and there was no element of profit. Further argued that payment was not made towards any service contract and also that holding companies had deducted TDS u/s. 192 of the Act from the salaries paid to the personnel deputed and reimbursed by the assessee. He further argued that all details were filed during the assessment proceedings before the AO in support of its argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
