9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act without considering the ground realities. The clearing charges were paid to three parties of them none exceeded the threshold limit under the provisions of section 194C of income-tax Act. The learned Assessing Officer erroneously considered clearing charges under the head Professional and Technical Services instead of Contractual Services and made additions to total income amounting to ₹ 60,092/-. 2. The briefly stated facts are as under. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the trading in Optical lens accessories, lens processing instruments, machinery, spares and consumables etc. under the name and style of M/s. Lenstech Services. The assessee filed the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration. In the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ITO (2007) 12 SOT 221 (Delhi) and after elaborate discussion it is held that the services rendered by clearing and forwarding agents are squarely covered u/s. 194C of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the payment made by the assessee to the C F Agent are not covered u/s. 194J but u/s. 194C. We find that as per the amounts amendment mentioned against each C F Agent in the assessment order the amounts are less than ₹ 50,000/- and per the provisions of Sec. 194C the aggregate limit of payment was ₹ 50,000/- for A.Y. 2006-07. We, accordingly, hold that there was no obligation on the assessee to deduct the tax at source from the payments made to C F Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 1,83,643/-. The addition was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the parties. The Learned Counsel submits that the copies of Form No. 15G were furnished by the recipients and hence, no tax was deducted. The Counsel also filed the copies of Form No. 15G in the Paper Book to demonstrate that the said forms were received from the recipients in respect of interest paid within before end of financial year. The Learned Counsel also relied on the decisions in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO, ITA No. 3317/Mum/2010 order dated 20-05- 2011 and in the case of Karwat Steel Traders Vs. ITO, ITA No. 6822/Mum/2011 order dated 10-07-2013. We have also heard the Ld. DR. 7. In this case, it is not in dispute that the amount in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties aggregating ₹ 7,87,291/- but did not deduct tax at source u/s. 194A. It was claimed by the assessee that all the payees to whom the interest was paid have furnished declarations in Form No. 15H/15G to the assessee. The assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that the said forms were filed belatedly by mistakes. The Tribunal also observed that even if the assessee have belatedly filed the declarations with the office of CCIT/CIT beyond the time limit specified in Sec. 197A(2) that amount to omission or default for which the penalties prescribed and no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made. 10. In the case of Karwat Steel Traders Vs. ITO (supra) the assessee has paid the interest but did not deduct the tax at source in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
