9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CKIL on behalf of the assessee and the tax has been deducted at source there from by M/s CKIL, it should be construed that M/s CKIL has deducted tax at source also on behalf of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the obligation of the assessee to deduct tax at source has been fulfilled by M/s CKIL and hence agree with the view taken by Ld CIT(A) that the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) would not get attracted in this factual matrix - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 6151/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year 2008-09) - - - Dated:- 30-7-2018 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri G Manjunatha, AM Appellant by: Shri Rajan Vora, AR Respondent by: Shri DG Pansari, DR ORDER Mahavir Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an actual reimbursement (without markup) and CKII. as a payer has already deducted tax, wherever required while making these payments. in light of the MOU entered into between them, therefore there is no breach of the TDS provision: 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee made certain payment to M/s Cox and Kings India Ltd. (CKIL) and claimed that it is reimbursement of expenses amounting to ₹ 8,24,13,778/- under an agreement for utilization of common facilities and other expenses. The details of expenditure read as under: - According to AO, the assessee has made these payments to CKIL and not deducted any TDS under section 144C, 194J, 194I and 194H of the Act. Accordingly, the AO invoked the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the Assessee, CKL had duly fulfilled the TDS compliances and deposited the appropriate taxes in the Government treasury. Thus, any further deduction made by the assessee on the same payments would tantamount to double deduction of taxes. In this regard, it was claimed that since the appropriate taxes have been duly deposited in the Government treasury, the internal arrangement between the parties becomes irrelevant. Further, it is claimed that the said expenses paid by CKL were not claimed by CKL as a deduction in the return of income. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the Tribunal s decision in assessee s own case for AY 2012-13 in ITA No 1175/Mum/2017 order dated 11.09.2017, wherein Tribunal on exac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
