9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve Travel Allowance) ignoring the fact that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and provisions is not an allowable expenditure. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 88,91,816/- made on account of non-deduction of TDS on the payment made to M/s Graziano Transmission North America, USA holding the same as commission ignoring the fact that the payment is actually in the nature of fee for technical services and the assessee only named the same as commission to enjoy the tax benefit. iii. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as asked to explain as to why the payment made to M/s Graziano Trasmissioni North America USA be not treated as royalty / fees for technical services in light of the services offered by the said company. The assessee company was further asked to explain as to why no TDS was deducted on the payment made to the said company. In compliance thereto the assessee company did not file any reply. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Act and in accordance with judicial pronouncement on the issue in dispute, the AO observed that assessee was liable to deduct TDS on export commission of Rs. 89,91,816 paid to non-resident / outsiders. Since assessee did not deduct the TDS as per provision of the section 195 of the Act, therefore, total deduction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of the Ld. CIT(A) as under:- "I have perused the assessment order as well as the submission of the Ld. AR. It is seen that assessee has debited Rs. 11,87,056/- towards LTA. The AO has treated as hypothetical expenses. However, the main contention of the Ld. AR that the LTA is paid to the employees every year and it is also contended that this is a certain liability and for his the Ld. AR has relied on case of Bharat Earth Moves 245 ITR 428 SC and Vinitec Corporation 278 ITR 337 Delhi High Court. Apart from this the Ld. AR has also brought to my notice that the same expenditure was allowed by the AO in his order u/s. 143(3) for AY 2009-10 and AY 2011-12. So in other words, it is preceding year as well as the succeeding year the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
