9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per S. Rifaur Rahman, A. M. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A) - 5, Hyderabad, dated 28/03/2016 for AY 2009-10. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of cultivation of land, sowing, irrigation and production and sale of seeds, filed its return of income for AY 2009- 10 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,51,894 Total 89,16,387/-. 2.2 The AO observed that no TDS was made by the assessee on the said payments. He, therefore, disallowed the said amount u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the payment made by it towards promotional expenses i.e. either towards purchase of promotional ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing at the end of the year i.e. outstanding as on 31 March, 2015. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and following the various case laws including the special bench decision of the ITAT in the case of Merlyn Shipping & Transports Vs. Addl. CIT, [2012 136 ITD 0023 (SB), held that the liability to deduct TDS out of promotional charges/payments does not arse and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g amount of Rs. 15,22,373/- out of the addition of Rs. 89,16,387/-. 9. Ld. AR, on the other hand besides relying on the order of the CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate, 371 ITR 439 (AP) 2. ACIT Vs. Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 229 (Hyd.) 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
