9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law arises. - Decided against revenue. Non deduction of TDS - payment to master card international and visa card international - disallowance under section 40(a)(i) - Indo-US DTAA - Held that:- In allowing its appeal, the Tribunal rightly followed its decision in the case of Central Bank of India v. Deputy CIT [2010 (9) TMI 661 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein on similar facts, it was held that even if no TDS is deducted, the payments made to visa card international and master card international on account of fees could not be disallowed in view of article 26(3) of the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).- Decided against revenue. Notional loss arising from unmatured foreign exchange contracts - whether allowable when the loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l without deduction of tax at source is not disallowable under section 40(a)(i) in view of article 26(3) of the Indo-US DTAA, when the provisions of article 26(3) were not attracted in the case, and especially for the year in question. (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that notional loss arising from unmatured foreign exchange contracts is allowable when the loss is neither a definite liability nor a legal liability as mandated by the Supreme Court in the decisions in the cases of Bharat Earth Movers [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) ; [2000] 112 Taxman 61 and Keshav Mills Ltd. [1953] 23 ITR 230 (SC) and in fact is expenditure contin gent on happening of an event and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without deducting tax at source. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount of fees remitted, aggregat ing to ₹ 82.33 lakhs in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer holding that visa card international and master card international have permanent establishment in India and, therefore, the income generated by them is taxable in India. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer, disallowing the entire fees remitted for failure to deduct tax under section 40(a)(i) of the Act was upheld. 6. On further appeal by the respondent-assessee, the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefrom, should normally also apply in subsequent orders. This of course unless the Revenue brings on record the reasons which necessitated/justified filing of an appeal from the impugned order when no appeal was filed from the earlier order which has been followed by the impugned order. However, there is nothing on record to indicate the reasons for filing an appeal from impugned order when no appeal is filed from the order of the Tribunal in Central Bank of India (supra). 10. Thus, on the above ground alone, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. Consistent application of law is an essential feature/ingredient of rule of law. Accordingly, question (b) is dismissed. Re Question (c) 11. The questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
