9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India and the amount was paid on behalf of the assessee to the said company was merely reimbursed by the assessee? - Held that:- There is no denial of fact from the Revenue as to the nature of the payments by the assessee to M/s Commune Market & Events Pvt. Ltd. and M/s FIH. M/s FIH made the payment of ₹ 8,09,545/- directly to M/s Commune Market & Events Pvt. Ltd. outside India and for that matter M/s FIH incurred so much of expenditure which the assessee reimbursed to them. In the circumstances, we find it difficult to agree with the Ld. DR that these payments partake the nature of income in the hands of M/s FIH and consequently, we hold that the assessee was not obliged to deduct TDS on the same. We, therefore, uphold the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with copies of their ledger accounts. Ld. DR seriously disputed this stating that the Assessing Officer should have been given an opportunity on this aspect to verify the veracity and genuineness of the material produced by the assessee. We are in agreement with the submission of the Ld. DR and find that the material produced by the assessee has to be verified by the AO. We, therefore, set aside this ground also to the file of the AO. - ITA No.-3739/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Sh.Shaantanu Jain, Adv. For The Revenue : Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ₹ 5,50,000/- made by the AO being the income received from M/s Sail, which was not declared to the department by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,09,545/- and ₹ 4,17,63,525/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) for not deducting TDS on these payments. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 66,50,763/- made by the AO on account of bogus creditors. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 63,635/- made by the AO on account of prior period expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee claimed the credit of TDS as per 26AS statement, later on the assessee brought to the notice of the AO that such claim was by mistake and since they did not provide any service to SAIL nor did they receive ₹ 5,50,000/- they reconciled their books of accounts. Ld. CIT (A) basing on CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2010) 331 ITR 10 (HC) held that the Revenue is recognized only when the services are actually rendered and since no service was rendered and no payment was received the addition of ₹ 5,50,000/- cannot be sustained. 5. On this aspect, it is the submission of the Ld. AR that Ld. CIT (A) is right in deleting the addition, whereas Ld. DR submits that it is a verifiable fact as to whether there is any service rendered and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(ia) of the Act. In the same way, the Ld. CIT (A) held that the FIH made several transactions on behalf of the assessee and raised credit note, which the assessee booked in their books of accounts and debit the various heads of expenditure, these expenses were made out of India. Ld. CIT (A) held that since the AO has accepted the fact that the expenses were incurred by M/s FIH on behalf of the assessee and the assessee reimbursed these expenses to M/s FIH during the course of year, the question of these amounts of ₹ 8,09,545/- and 4,17,63,525/- partaking the nature of income in the hands of M/s FIH does not arise and consequently the disallowance made by the AO is wrong. For this principle Ld. CIT (A) relied upon the decisions report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and the payments were partly in the previous year and partly in the succeeding year. Having considered the copy of the bank accounts and the cheque numbers with amounts and dates placed on record by the assessee, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted this addition. When there is no denial of the factual position, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) do not seem to be pervasive requiring any interference. The observations of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on solid facts. Hence, we do not propose to disturb the same. We uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) on this aspect and dismiss ground no. 3. 9. Now adverting to ground no. 4 the so called prior period expenses, Ld. CIT (A) found merit in the argument of the assessee that an amount of ₹ 63,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
