9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ld. CIT (A), Udaipur. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal: On the facts and in the present circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in 1. (a) deleting the disallowance of ₹ 26,74,200/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on consultancy charges ignoring the fact that payment is purely for consultancy not reimbursement of the cost. 1. (b) Ignoring the fact that alternatively even from assessee s contention it is the payment against contract/agreement thus still liable for TDS. 2. Deleting the disallowance of ₹ 38,19,669/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on hire charges ignoring the fact that assessee him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the agreement and page 60 of the Written Submission is relevant in this regard. As per the agreement entered into by this assessee with the concerned Authority it is a compulsory payment to be made as a reimbursement. On this amount, obviously Section 194J is not applicable. We don t find any infirmity in this finding of ld. CIT(A) as well. In A.Y. 2007-08, we have to take the similar view because facts are the same and connected. Therefore, we dismiss Ground No. 3 of the revenue s appeal in both the years under consideration. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 22/03/2013, we do not see any merit in this ground of the departmental appeal. 5. The another issue vide ground No.2 in this appeal relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses which have been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of TDS. Accordingly, Ground No.(1) of assessee s appeal is allowed. 8. In the present case also, learned CIT(A) made the addition by following the decision of the ITAT, Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transport Vs. ACIT reported in 136 ITD 23. Therefore, the view taken by the learned CIT(A) is in consonance with the view taken by this bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in the preceding year vide order dated 22/03/2013 in I.T.A.No. 215/Jodh/2012. So, by respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. 9. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed. (Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
