9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO to verify the reimbursement of expenses after hearing the same and accordingly decide the issue as per law and fact. Accordingly, we allow this ground for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.2028/Mum/2011, I.T.A. No.1736/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2016 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Assessee : Shri Shivaji Gode For The Revenue : Shri M S Mathuria ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM These are the two appeals. These are directed against the two separate orders dated 17.1.2011 and 7.12.2012 for the assessment years 2007-08 by the assessee and 2009-10 by the revenue passed by the ld. CIT(A)-33, Mumbai. Since, these appeals pertain to the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The assessee was only a mediator /agent/facilitator for arranging the transportation of goods. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has paid following payments to four parties namely (1) Millenium Freight Fwds Pvt Ltd (2)Pomona Cargo Movers (3)SARR Freights Clearing Agencies and (4) Universal Shipping on which no TDS was deducted and deposited: 1 Documentation charges 61340 2 Freight charges paid 12456966 3 Handling charges 2700 4 Loading and unloading 125007 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the assessee to tax the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) had no application. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt Ltd V/s CIT (2007) 393 ITR 226(SC) and the CBDT circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997. The ld.CIT(A) considered and rejected the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal by observing and holding as under : I have gone through the assessment order, written submissions made as well as case laws cited by appellant. The appellant has claimed that the freight paid by him are direct expenses and hence they are covered by decision in the case of M/s. Teja Constructions - Hyderabad Bench 'A' (2010) 39 SOT 13 (Hyd)(URO). However, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ₹ 1,24,56,966/- which as per details furnished before the Assessing Officer had been made to difference parties. Further the appellant is silent about the explanation incurred by way of documentation charges, handling charges, loading and unloading charges, other charges and transport charges. In view of insufficient details, benefit cannot be given for the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) for an amount of ₹ 1,72,14,875/-. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessee was simply a facilitator arranging the transport for others for he used to take reimbursement from the customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handling charges, loading and unloading charges and other charges paid including transport and welfare charges etc. which were contractual payments and prayed before the Bench for upholding the order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and after perusing the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below, we find that the assessee was simply engaged in the business of providing mediator services by arranging the transport from other transporters and was not having his own vehicles. In other words, the assessee was only acting as facilitator for providing transport services. From page 2 of the paper book, we find that a sum of ₹ 1,73,09,433/- was received as reimbursement of expenses which was sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A. No.1736/Mum/2013 8. The issue raised in various grounds of appeal is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 3,53,20,347/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the AO for non deduction of tax on the reimbursement of expenses. We have already decided the similar issue in ITA No.2028/Mum/2013 wherein we have set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to verify whether the claim of the assessee is genuine qua reimbursement of expenses if so, the AO is directed to delete the addition. However, in the present case, the revenue has challenged the addition under similar facts wherein the ld.CIT(A) has recorded the finding of facts that the TDS was not required to be deducted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
