9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the reimbursement of expenses of Rs.1,36,405/- to appellant's associated enterprises were sums chargeable to tax in India and hence, inadmissible under section 40(a)(i) of the Act as tax has not been deducted at source thereon. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that on car rent of Rs.5,04,027/- tax was deductible under Section 194C of the Act and not under Section 1941 of the Act and hence, erred in confirming the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as tax has not been deducted at source. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01,000/-, in the revised return of income. 2.4 The Ld.AO called upon assessee to explain the details in respect of the credit claimed by the assessee. In response, it was submitted that, corresponding receipts were declared against the credit claimed by assessee. The Ld.AO was of the view that, the corresponding receipts were not fully accounted for in the year under consideration and therefore Rs. 8,45,868/- was disallowed. 2.5 The Ld.AO further observed that, the assessee received interest on fixed deposit from bank amounting to Rs. 40,33,450/- on which, TDS of Rs. 4,03,351/- was deducted. The Ld.AO noted that, the assessee claimed the credit of TDS, but declared income of Rs. 40,32,944/-. The Ld.AO thus added the balance amount of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the additions made by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4.2 The Ld.CIT(A) partly granted relief to assessee by granting the credit of the TDS in respect of the income offered by assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is on appeal before this Tribunal. 5.1 At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that there was delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld.AR submitted that, the present appeal should have been filed on or before 19/12/2020. The Ld.AR submitted that, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the consultant's office was closed, thereby causing the delay. It is submitted that, the last date of filing the appeal falls during the period covered by the provision of section 3(1)(b) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in light of records placed before us. 8. We note that, the payment made by the assessee is towards license fee in respect of the use of software. The said issue is no more res integra by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT reported in (2012) 432 ITR 471. It is not the case of revenue that there is a transfer of right to use in respect of these software is owned by Brand Union worldwide Ltd. It is also not disputed by the revenue that, these software are developed by the parent company. Instead we note that Brand Union worldwide Ltd., has been procured these software and has allotted to the group companies, against which, cost have been allocated. Such an allocation can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of hiring of vehicles by assessee with individuals. The revenue is not alleging that the payment made to person are contractors. It is a submission of the Ld.AR that there is no principal agent relationship and therefore provisions of section 194C are not applicable. In the present facts of the case the conditions do not satisfy to be covered under section 194C of the Act. We note that, the assessee has deducted TDS u/s. 194I in respect of one of the lessor, from whom vehicle was taken on lease and that, the payment exceeded the threshold limit of Rs. 1,80,000/-. There is no malafide intention of assessee to evade tax. In respect of the remaining payments, the threshold limit did not exceed and therefore TDS need not have been de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to Rs. 1,11,48,993/-.
The Ld.AR referred to page 121 of the paper which is in order passed by the Ld. DCIT Circle 1(1)(2) dated 24/02/2020. This is in order in response to the letter by Ld. CIT(A) calling for remand report to verify available TDS as per the database. The Ld. DCIT filed the report dated 24/02/2020 mentioning the availability of credit as per e-TDS database amounting to Rs. 1,11,14,993/-.
16. We therefore direct Ld.AO to grant the TDS available to the assessee as per the remand report dated 24/02/2020.
According this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.
In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 04th April, 2022. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
