9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to services rendered by various concerns, find no point/clue on the basis of which the nature of these services can be characterized as professional of technical in nature. The services rendered are nothing but for maintenance of various types of machines already installed. Only because technical persons are involved in rendering the said services does not mean that services become technical or professional in nature. Hence, the A.O.’s action in this regard is not approved. - Decided on favour of assessee. Disallowance of allowing exemption for the office Wear Allowance (‘OWA’) under section 10(14) - Held that:- In this case, the assessee is unable to satisfy any of the conditions. When there was no dress code and the employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of convenience. ITA Nos. 856 857/Ahd/2011 Revenue s Appeal for AYs 2007-08 2009-10 2. The first ground raised in the appeal by the Revenue in both the years read as under:- AY 2007-08 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts of the case in deleting the order passed u/s 201A(1) of the I.T. Act of ₹ 10,09,800/- interest charge u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act of ₹ 4,27,482 for A.Y. 2007-08 even though during the course of verification it was noticed that the assessee company had not deducted tax in respect of payment of rent u/s 194I of the IT Act of ₹ 60,00,000/- @ ₹ 5 lakhs per month to M/s. Tirupati Organisers Pvt Ltd (TOPL) for using premises infrastructures. AY 2009-10 The Ld. CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e head profits and gains of business , because it was the income from the business of joint venture of processing of diamonds. The dispute reached to the High Court and the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tirupati Organisers Pvt Ltd vide Tax Appeals No. 226 to 268 of 2013, decided the issue in favour of the assessee with the following findings:- In the present case, the facts are vitally different. The assessee had not rented out property but had allowed its use thereof for the purpose of joint venture business. In addition to the space with proper infrastructural facilitates, it also provides various other facilitates to be used for the purpose of diamond processing. 5. Thus, when the Hon ble jurisdictional High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the services and therefore, tax was required to be deducted u/s 194C. The tax was actually deducted u/s 194C. On appeal, the CIT(A) accepted assessee s contention with the following findings:- 7.5 I have considered both i.e. contentions of the A.O. in the order in question and the appellant s submissions. On going through the facts with regard to services rendered by various concerns, I find no point/clue on the basis of which the nature of these services can be characterized as professional of technical in nature. The services rendered are nothing but for maintenance of various types of machines already installed. Only because technical persons are involved in rendering the said services does not mean that services become technical or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that office wear allowance is exempt u/s 10(14) of the Act because the provisions of Sec. 10(14) talks about the expenses which is granted to meet wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose. Here in this case what has actually been incurred by the employee is not known as the appellant has not been able to submit any details in this regard before the A.O. and also during appellate proceedings. Hence, the A.O. s action in this regard is approved. 11. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee could not establish how the wear-allowance paid to the employees was exempt u/s 10(14). During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that in this regard the assessee has already filed an application u/s 154. The same is disposed of by the Assessing Officer and the appeal against such order u/s 154 is pending before the CIT(A). He, therefore, submitted that, at present, this ground can be treated as infructuous and the assessee will be at liberty to take proper remedy if the CIT(A) does not accept the assessee s contention in the appeal filed u/s 154. The ld. Departmental Representative has no objection to the above suggestion of the ld. Counsel . We, therefore, treat the Ground No. 2 as infructuous and reject accordingly. However, we may clarify that the disposal of Ground No.2 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
