9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of transport charges and other charges is concerned, the same was complied with by the agent, who had made payment on its behalf - Thus deleting the disallowance confirmed – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 283/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2016 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member By Revenue Shri Deepak Sutaria, Sr. D.R. By Assessee Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.R. O R D E R PER : Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member This appeal filed by Revenue is against the order of CIT(A), Valsad, dated 30.10.2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under: 3. The Assessee is a company stated to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to deduct TDS, he disallowed the expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition by holding as under: 5.3 I have considered observation of the AO in the assessment order as well as the contention raised by the AR of the appellant in the written submission. There is no plausible reason to disagree with the contention of the appellant that the provisions of Section 194J r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable in the instant case as the appellant has paid Freight charges to the C F agents which is not covered within the meaning of Fees for professional or technical services as defined and provided in Sec.194J of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had merely reimbursed the expenditure to C F agents. He further submitted that the payment neither falls within the ambit of fees for technical services u/s.194J nor there was any contract between the assessee and the C F agents and therefore also assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s.194J. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 315 of 2013. He also placed on record a copy of the aforesaid decision. He, thus, supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to disallowance u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal and by the impugned order the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has confirmed the order passed the CIT(A). It is required to be noted that while confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) and deleting the disallowance, it has been specifically observed by the tribunal that in fact the expenses were incurred by the agent on behalf of the assessee for transportation and other charges, which has been spelt out in the bill itself including the commission to the agent. The learned tribunal also observed that the relation between the assessee and the agent is principal and an agent. The learned tribunal also observed that so far as the obligation to deduct tax at source from the payment of transport charges and other charges is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
