9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.I.T (Appeals)], are factual in nature, the challenge is on the ground that the conclusion formed in the impugned order dated 14th March, 2014, is perverse. 2. We have gone through the assessment order. The respondent-assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture, food processing and infotech. The respondent-assessee had exported processed vegetable products to the United States of America (USA) and had entered into an agreement with M/s. Global Reliance Inc., USA. Copy of the said agreement was placed on record before the Assessing Officer, who observed it to be a self-serving document on the ground that the agreement was neither registered nor executed on a stamp paper. M/s Global Reliance Inc., USA was closely associated with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d other details of M/s Global Reliance Inc., a company registered and incorporated in the USA were placed on record. On the question of ocean freight, it was stated that the same was verified by APEDA, which had granted subsidy of Rs. 3,60,7000/- towards ocean freight. The custom duty, it was stated, was paid to the custom department in the USA and stood proved from the documents. It is noticeable that the C.I.T (Appeals) has referred to the custom duty receipt, which was placed on record with the name of payer as "M/s. Global Reliance Inc". The warehousing, selling and administrative expenses were actually incurred by the consignee. In respect of selling, administrative and other incidental expenses, it was stated that M/s. Global Reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices. As per the agreement, the assessee had to pay 9.05% of the total sales made by the consignee. With regard to certificate of Certified Public Accountant (CPA), it was held that the same was called for by the assessing officer and on his insistence certificate of one Stanley Osur, CPA of the USA was furnished to show the expenses incurred by M/s. Global Reliance Inc. during the relevant period. Break-up of the said expenses were duly mentioned in the certificate. 5. The aforesaid findings have been accepted by the Tribunal. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, this court vide order dated 1st September, 2014, brought to the notice of the Revenue that the findings recorded by the appellate authorities including the Tribunal appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant-Revenue submits that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would be applicable. We notice that the aforesaid section and provision was neither invoked by the Assessing Officer nor by the first appellate authority. However, we find that before the Tribunal, the Departmental Representative did raise the contention that TDS provisions would be applicable. The aforesaid contention was rejected by the Tribunal, relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), on the ground that M/s Global Reliance Inc. was not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. It appears that the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
