9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 27,68,317/-. 4. The facts apropos this issue are that the assessee claimed to have paid a sum of Rs. 27,68,317/- to its holding company TACO, one of the joint venture partners (50% share) and similar amount of Rs. 27,68,317/- was also paid as Royalty to the other holding company, namely, Visteon International Holding Inc, Joint Venture. The assessee claimed that sum of Rs. 27.68 lakhs was paid to TACO in view of the services rendered by them under the Administrative Services Agreement (ASA). The assessee was called upon to explain the nature of services received from TACO. In response, the assessee stated that ASA charges were payable in respect of services rendered by TACO towards support and guidance in the operational areas of ; 'H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion; and 'IT support'- Setting up of IT and communication. On going through the nature of services, it becomes patent that there has to be substantial evidence in the form of e-mails and other documents for rendition of such services. In the absence of the assessee having produced any evidence to demonstrate that it availed the services provided by TACO, we cannot accept the claim of the assessee. 6. The ld. AR contended that though the evidence was not available at the material time during the course of proceedings before the authorities below, such evidence could be now furnished to the AO. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of Rs. 1,05,217/- and sustained the remaining addition of Rs. 4,14,207/-, against which the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 10. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we find that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is in respect of certain items mentioned on page 12 of the impugned order which were claimed as reimbursement of Jamshedpur office expenses incurred during June to September 2008 and the claimed reimbursement of expenses of M/s. Shinohar Consultant. The first sum of Rs. 1,97,406/- is the claim by the assessee to be reimbursement of Jamshedpur office expenses during the months mentioned above. Except for invoices, the assessee has placed nothing on record to demonstrate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The ld. CIT(A) took the view that the payment must be made by the assessee so as to claim deduction. He thus sustained the disallowance. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of the addition. 14. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the assessee has made a claim of having paid interest of Rs. 25,52,009/-. In the books of account of the assessee, such interest was shown as payable. Going by the mandate of section 43B, such non-payment of interest could not have ordinarily entitled the assessee to claim a deduction for it. The ld. AR claimed that such interest of Rs. 25.52 lakhs was, in fact, paid by its sister concern before the due date. However, no evidence could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
