9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive common grounds of appeal (except for the amounts):- DISALLOWANCE OF CHARGEABLE SUM PAID TO A FOREIGN COMPANY WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX "1. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance, under clause (i) of s. 40(a) of the Act, of business expenditure being the race-promotion fee paid by the appellant-assessee to Formula One World Championship Ltd of UK ("FOWC") without deduction of tax. The disallowance upheld is to the extent of the chargeable sum, comprised within the race-promotion fee, attributable to the PE of FOWC in India. 2. That in upholding the above disallowance the learned CIT (Appeals) has not appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed to be an assessee in default in terms of the first proviso to s. 201(1) of the Act. d) Therefore the appellant-assessee was entitled to be deemed as having deducted and paid the tax on the said lease rent in terms of the second proviso to clause (ia) of s. 40(a) of the Act." 3. The short question arising for consideration in the above appeals for the Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 is regarding disallowance under Clause (i) of Section 40 (a) in respect of RPC fees paid to Formula One World Championship Ltd. to UK without deducting the tax. It is the specific case of the assessee is that no disallowance could be me made on RPC fees since the payee Formula One World Championship Ltd. had already been assessed on relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Year 2012-13, Rs. 368,025,412/- instead of Rs. 228,973,487/- in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 506,415,998/- instead of Rs. 307,349,578/- in Assessment Year 2014-15. 4. We have heard the parties perused the material on record. In our considered opinion, no part of the RPC fee paid by the assessee is liable to be disallowed under clause (i) of s. 40(a) because the second proviso clause (i) of Section 40(a) has been inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2020. The said proviso essentially provides that where the relevant income has been declared by the payee and tax thereon has been paid by him then no disallowance shall be made in the hands of the payer. This proviso is similar to the second proviso to clause (ia) of s. 40(a) which was inserted w.e.f. 1.4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
