9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any nexus between the borrowings and the utilization of funds. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal has recorded a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that it could not be said that interest bearing funds were diverted for non-business purpose. Having regard to the fact that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded by it after appreciation of the evidence on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the same does not give rise to any question of law. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of TDS on the payment made to the C & F agent - CIT(A) deleted the addition c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,33,252/- made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)((iii) of the Act? [2] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 55,94,825/- made on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act ? 2. The assessment year is 2008-09 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year 2007-08. The assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2008 declaring total income of ₹ 80,79,294/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had given interest free loans of ₹ 81,14,103/- out of which, ₹ 70,14,103/- was given to M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) basically for the sake of consistency and that the Tribunal has not relied on its decision in the assessee's case, but has relied on the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in respect of which, further appeal was not filed in view of the low tax effect involved. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal being erroneous, the matter requires consideration. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reveals that he has noted that there was a direct nexus between the borrowings and the utilization of funds, and therefore, it could not be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the same does not give rise to any question of law. 8. As regards proposed question No.2, the assessee debited ₹ 62,85,013/- as clearing and forwarding charges, but out of this amount, deducted TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) only on an amount of ₹ 7,45,801/-. It was the case of the assessee that the C F agent incurs the expenses on behalf of the company and he is merely acting as a front man of the company; and that these expenses have no nexus with the commission he is supposed to get for his work. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee submitted that the part of the clearing and forwarding expenses, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Referring to the assessment order, it was pointed out that the same clearly shows that there is no evidence that no TDS was made on reimbursement and the TDS was deducted on bills separately raised. It was, accordingly, urged that the matter requires consideration on the question a proposed or as may be deemed fit by this court. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reveals that he has taken note of the fact that the assessee did not deduct TDS on reimbursements made to C F agent on separate bills of reimbursement on account of freight and other payments made on behalf of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Om Satya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and deleted the additions. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals), namely, that no TDS is required to be deducted in case where the reimbursement bills were separately raised. 12. Thus, from the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the assessee had deducted the TDS in respect of the payment made to the C F agent and separate bills had been raised in respect of reimbursement expenses incurred by the agent. Since the reimbursement bills were separately raised, there was no requirement to deduct TDS in respect thereof. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
