9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified sum/s, for its deduction in computation of business income, so that the very fact of its invocation implies that the condition of deductibility is otherwise met. The applicability of TDS in such a case would depend on the nature of the payment and the work done (by the sister concerns). If, on the other hand, the debit notes state of only the employees having been deputed to the assessee-company, which may deploy them for any work it deems fit and proper for the purpose of its business, it would be a case of the employees being made available to the assessee-company. The payment in such a case would have to be directly to the concerned persons in-as-much as they stand seconded, i.e., are on deputation, to the assessee-company, ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the relevant sum for the relevant year, only seeks to operationalize and apply the decision Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd.[ 2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] The matter, accordingly, setting aside the impugned order, is, for fresh determination, on the lines indicated above, restored to the file of the AO, to do so by issuing definite findings of fact. The assessee, on whom the burden to establish its claims lie, shall be allowed proper opportunity to represent its case before him. Assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d paras 6 to 6.2 of the impugned order. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) would during hearing take us through the ledger accounts of the related parties, which bear debits to their accounts for payments made to them (by the assessee). He was, however, unable to show us the corresponding credit/s in their accounts, claimed to be on the basis of debit notes raised, on monthly basis, by the said parties. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would, on the other hand, emphasize that the related concerns were not doing any business and, accordingly, their staff was paid salary by the assessee-company, which must therefore be regarded as a first-hand payment and not as a reimbursement. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specified sum/s, for its deduction in computation of business income, so that the very fact of its invocation implies that the condition of deductibility is otherwise met. Proceeding further, it needs to be appreciated that the concerned employees, till their co-option by the assessee-company w.e.f. 01.01.2015, continue to be the employees of the sister concern/s, who is contractually obliged to pay salary thereto, irrespective of whether it is in business or not. That the said payment would not be deductible in computing its' income in the absence of any business is a different matter. Where working for the assesseecompany, as is the admitted position, the expenditure toward services rendered by the employees, would stand to be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to pay salary thereto, on account of second-ment/deputation, is on the assessee-company. How, we wonder, could this be regarded as a case of reimbursement of expenditure? The assessee need not have credited, or routed the transaction through, the account of the sister concern/s. That is, considered either way, it is not a case of reimbursement of expenditure. This is precisely what the Revenue means when it states that the assessee-company has merely routed the expenditure through the account of the related parties, and that therefore nothing turns thereon. Be that as it may, where, however, the concerned employees, or the sister concerns, as the case may be, have discharged their tax liability on the relevant income/s, the assessee-com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
