9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... travel. Respondent had made arrangement for foreign travel for all the agents and paid expenses directly to those service providers. Therefore as no amount was paid to the agents by respondent, obligation to deduct income tax thereon at source also would not arise. We disagree with the view expressed by the Assessing Officer and concur with the view expressed by the CIT(A) as well as ITAT (though its reasons are different from our reasons). - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1632 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1873 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1889 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1875 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2021 - K. R. SHRIRAM AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani a/w. Mr. P. C. Tripat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. 3. Assessing Officer also noticed that respondents had incurred foreign travel expenses for its agents who were working for soliciting or procuring insurance business for respondent and Assessing Officer opined that foreign travel expenses incurred by respondents on its agents should be covered under the words income by way of remuneration or reward whether by way of commission or otherwise used in Section 194D. Since respondent did not deduct TDS Assessing Officer treated respondent as an assessee in default within the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and worked out TDS default. 4. Against the order dated 15/3/2011 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) of the Act, rectification order dated 28/11/2011 u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. CIT (A) also passed a separate order dated 28/9/2012 in the appeal filed by respondent in respect of order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 201(1A) of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved by order dated 28/8/2012 in respect of the order passed under Section 201(1) of the Act dated 15/3/2011 of the AO, the appellant as well as respondent filed appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ITAT). 9. ITAT by order dated 18/11/2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of CIT(A) in respect of service tax component of insurance commission paid to or credited in the name of insurance agent and also that respondent has correctly deducted TDS under Section 194C of the Act on account of usage/hiring of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sections viz., 194J , 194D etc. ? d) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has ignored the fact that the payments were made to various vendors, like payment to server management services and call support services etc. which were highly specialized work requiring the involvement of highly qualified and technical manpower for carrying out these activities and therefore, the payment towards these services are in the nature of payments for technical services and therefore liable for TDS under Section 194J ? e) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the tax by way of short deduction without properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix of the case as clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent as a reimbursement of expenses incurred by agent in the foreign travel. Respondent had made arrangement for foreign travel for all the agents and paid expenses directly to those service providers. Therefore as no amount was paid to the agents by respondent, obligation to deduct income tax thereon at source also would not arise. 13. In the circumstances, we disagree with the view expressed by the Assessing Officer and concur with the view expressed by the CIT(A) as well as ITAT (though its reasons are different from our reasons). 14. Appeals are devoid of merits and are dismissed with no order as to costs. 15. Identical substantial questions of law have been proposed for above 4 appeals except Income Tax Appeal No.1632/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
