9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be interfered. Assessee has claimed that the it engaged M/s. Ultro Technologies India Private Limited to help it in procuring and executing the order but it is strange that the agreement with GAIL Ltd. was executed on 01.01.2002 while the debit note for commission has been raised by Ultro Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd, in terms of agreement dated 25.03.2002. So, the onus was on the assessee to establish what were the agreed terms and conditions or services which were provided by the agent during the term of execution of the project but the same is not established. Thus, the law relied is distinguishable on matter on record and there is no substance in the ground 1 to differ with the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. The same is determined against the appellant. Disallowance to the extent of 20% of the expenditure relating it to period prior to the setting of PO in India - addition of Tour, Travelling and Conveyance expenses on ad-hoc basis and treating the same as pre-project expenditure - HELD THAT:- This addition of travel and conveyance expenses there appears to be no justification to estimate 20% of the expenses being related to pre-operative period. FAA has obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The facts in brief are the appellant, Wuhan Research Institute of Post Telecommunication, China (WRI) is into the business of manufacturing and sale of telecom related equipments. The Appellant was awarded a contract for supply, installation and commissioning of telecom system for LANCO project at Rajahmundry, A.P., India by Gas Authority of India Limited. The order was on Single Point Total Responsibility of the Seller basis and to execute the project, WRI set up a project office in India after taking approval of the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant claims that the contract was executed in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2003-04. 2.1 The return of income for the A.Y. 2003-04 was filed by the appellant on 2.12.2003 declaring a total income of ₹ 54,43,112/- the case was selected for scrutiny and the Assistant Director of Incpme Tax, Circle 2(2), International Taxation, New Delhi completed the assessment by passing an order on 28.3.2006 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at taxable income of ₹ 99,15,289/-. 2.2 The Assessee has claimed that the parent company of the appellant deputed some of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enge were rejected while partly allowing the appeal. So the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal before this Tribunal:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ClT(Appeals)-43, New Delhi (hereinafter called as C1T(A) for short] erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing ₹ 19,33,872/- being commission paid by the appellant to M/s Ultro Technologies (India] Pvt. Ltd., treating the same as pre-project expenditure. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A] erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an expenditure of ₹ 8,52,179/- out of Tour, Travelling and Conveyance expenses on ad-hoc basis and treating the same as preproject expenditure. 3. That without prejudice to the Ground at No. 2, the CIT(A] erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO which is arbitrary, unjust and very excessive. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A] has erred in confirming the action of AO in not treating the training fee of Rs, 36,25,700/- which falls under the definition of technical service fee as taxable under sub-clause (B] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available and cannot be produced before the Bench. That being so the findings of Ld. AO or Ld. First Appellate Authority that the expenses were pre project expenditure cannot be interfered. 5.3 Rather the Assessee has claimed that the it engaged M/s. Ultro Technologies India Private Limited to help it in procuring and executing the order but it is strange that the agreement with GAIL Ltd. was executed on 01.01.2002 while the debit note for commission has been raised by Ultro Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd, in terms of agreement dated 25.03.2002. So, the onus was on the assessee to establish what were the agreed terms and conditions or services which were provided by the agent during the term of execution of the project but the same is not established. Thus, the law relied is distinguishable on matter on record and there is no substance in the ground 1 to differ with the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. The same is determined against the appellant. Ground No. 2 and 3 6. In regard to these grounds Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that without any substantive reasoning arbitrarily the ld. AO had made disallowance to the extent of 20% of the expenditure relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
