9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue that tax should have been required to be deducted by the assessee @ 10% as per the contention of the AO and @ 2% as claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As stated by the ld AR that no action has been taken by the ld AO u/s 201(1) and (1A) of the Act in the impugned Assessment Year, Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection are hypothetical and when we have already deleted the addition in the case of the assessee, we do not find it appropriate at this stage to decide it. Assessee is at liberty to raise such question at the appropriate stage but not in this appeal where the assessee has succeeded based on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee s own case. Accordingly, cross objection of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi dated 02/12/2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is as under:- 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in cross objection is as under:- 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company who filed its return of income on 05/10/2010 at nil income. The assessee is engaged in providing back office mortgage processing services to their client being lenders, financial institutions, and law firms. The loan processing is automated through computer software. During the year, the assessee has incurred expenditure under the head allocable Capex Cost for the use of assets such as furniture and fixture, leasehold improvements, ai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent for the work station having computer which are used by the employees as a tool in the assessee s business and therefore they fulfill the function of plant in the business activity and hence as it is a rent for the plant and machinery the TDS is required to be deducted under section 194I of the Act @ 2%. The AO was of the view that the above rent is for the furniture and hence under section 194I tax was required to be deducted @ 10%. The ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances relying on the decision of the Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of the CIT Vs SK Tekriwal wherein it has been held that with regard to the shortfall it cannot assume that there is a default of failure to deduct tax at sources. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. As stated by the ld AR that no action has been taken by the ld AO under section 201(1) and (1A) of the Act in the impugned Assessment Year, Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection are hypothetical and when we have already deleted the addition in the case of the assessee, we do not find it appropriate at this stage to decide it. Assessee is at liberty to raise such question at the appropriate stage but not in this appeal where the assessee has succeeded based on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee s own case. Accordingly, cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. 9. The second ground of appeal of the revenue is against the deletion of the addition of ₹ 1105515/- be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
