9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew taken by the CIT(A) as well as by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts that the payments made to the agent for the freight paid by it on the respondent assessee's behalf was in fact, reimbursement of expenses. This is so evidenced by Airlines bills which show the respondent assessee as the person responsible to make the payment. This finding of fact by two Authorities is not shown to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in holding that the reimbursement expenditure is not liable to the TDS u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. The respondent assessee is engaged in the business of export of garments. During the course of the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that respondent assessee had debited an amount of ₹ 63.48 lakhs being comprised of ₹ 61.72 lakhs on account of freight and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A)]. The CIT(A), on facts found that the sample bills of the airlines in respect of which the reimbursement was made indicated the name of the respondent assessee as the person responsible for payment. The aforesaid amount billed to the respondent assessee was paid by its agent to the Airlines as freight and now reimbursed by the respondent assessee to its agent. The service charges of the age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the impugned order placed reliance upon the decisions of its coordinate benches where it has been held that where the bill for reimbursement is separately raised and not a part of the composite bill for services rendered, no disallowance for failure to deduct tax can arise. Thus, the impugned order upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 6. The grievance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
