9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable for TDS. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. TDS u/s 194C or 194I - Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, in respect of car rent expenses incurred by assessee - disallowance is on account of hiring of vehicles by assessee with individuals - HELD THAT:- 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 ₹ 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 deducted. We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the disallowance made in respect of the same. TDS credit not granted to assessee - HELD THAT:- The submissions of the Ld.AR is that, in the event part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not inadmissible as per section 40(a)(ii) of the Act and hence, the amount of cess of Rs.8,44,189/- or such other amount as may be determined for the assessment year under reference should be allowed as an admissible deduction in computing the total income. 5. It is humbly submitted that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove should be granted. 6. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of brand consulting and designing. For year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 24/11/2011, declaring total income of ₹ 8,78,04,626/-. Subsequently, on 28/03/2013 the assessee revised the return of income at ₹ 8,72,54,626/-. 2.2 The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 142(1) and 143(2) was issued to assessee. In response to statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed details as called for. 2.3 The Ld.AO observed that, assessee claimed TDS credit amounting to ₹ 1,18,01,000/-, in the revised return of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment to certain provisions) Act, 2020, read with the order of Hon ble Supreme Court dated 23/03/2020 was effective. The Ld.SR.DR, could not controvert the submissions and prayer by the Ld.AR. 6. We note that the last date of filing the present appeal falls during the Covid -19 Pandemic. During the relevant period, the limitation stood automatically extended by virtue of order passed by Hon ble Supreme Court (supra). Therefore, the delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. Accordingly the present appeal is admitted to be ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case rented cabs without a chaffeur. The Ld.AR submitted that, except for payment made to Gutenbarg, the other payments did not exceeded the threshold limit of ₹ 180,000/-, and therefore, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194I of the Act. 11. The Ld.AR submitted that, provisions of section 194C are not applicable, as the assessee has not hired any equipment or machinery. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1993) 301 ITR 435. On the contrary the Ld.SR.DR relied on orders passed by authorities below. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 12. We note that the disallowance is on 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
