9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olie 12,327/- i.e. sustained the disallowance of 6,000/-, sustained the disallowance of 8,388/- out of coolie and cartage expenses and sustained the disallowance as made by Assessing Officer in respect of general expenses i.e. 2,918/-. Since lower authorities have made the disallowances in absence of proper evidence, we find no need to interfere with the same and the same is hereby upheld. These grounds of assessee’s appeal are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 62,285/- and clearing charges at ₹ 6,71,261/- to M/s. Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. J. S. Clearing Services respectively. According to Assessing Officer, the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C of the Act but he has not deducted TDS and hence, he invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated in respect of octroi charges that freight is less than ₹ 12,622/- and it does not attract TDS in any case. For this he referred to assessee's paper book wherein details of octroi charges and other charges paid to M/s. Inland Transport Pvt. Ltd. are detailed out as under: Date Freight Ch. Oct. Ch. Os. Ch. Del. Ch. Misc Chgs incl unloading Chgs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for and on behalf of the assessee cannot be covered under the TDS provisions. Hence, these expenses are not liable to TDS and the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not applicable. For this, he relied on the decision in the case of ACIT V. Grandprix Fab. (P) Ltd,. (2010) 128 TTJ 60 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal vide para 16 has held as under: "16. In respect of the payment towards agency charges amounting to ₹ 1,01,219, the assesee has deducted tax amounting to ₹ 2,094 at source, and the said payment has not been disallowed by the A.O. The other two payments are towards payment of customs duty, and other expenses paid by the agent for/on behalf of the assessee. These reimbursement expenses were not made towards any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for supply of labour for works contract. In the case before us, we observe that the assessee has reimbursed the expenses to its consignment agent and it was not a direct payment for freight by the assessee to the transporter. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(a) and reject the grounds of appeal taken by the Department." He also relied on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai "F" Bench in the case of M/s. Utility Powertech Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2561/Mum/2009, A.Y. 2005-06 dated 19.04.2010, wherein the Tribunal vide para 5 has held as under: "5) We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The jurisdictional High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otion expenses, confirming the disallowance of ₹ 8,388/- in respect of Coolie & Cartage expenses and confirming the disallowance of ₹ 2,918/- in respect of general expenses respectively. 6. We have heard rival submissions on the above issue and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that in absence of proper evidence Assessing Officer made estimated disallowances on account of business promotion expenses, coolie and cartage expenses and general expenses. In appeal, CIT(A) gave part relief on account of business promotion expenses i.e. 20% of the expenses amounting to ₹ 12,327/- i.e. sustained the disallowance of ₹ 6,000/-, sustained the disallowance of ₹ 8,388/- out of coolie and cartage exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
