9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question? HELD THAT:- AR explained his inability to produce all invoices, payment receipts, etc. as required for fair adjudication of the issue in terms of the findings of the Special Bench. He fairly conceded that this evidences were not asked by the AO in view of the contention raised, the assessee being all along as an intermediary. He further submits that the invoices, receipts, etc. showing the payments to Container Freight Station (CFS) in statutory nature runs into voluminous and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of the findings of the Special Bench treating the assessee as principal. He further reiterated that the assessee is ready to produce all evidences showing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir or ship, obtaining clearances from Port Trust, Airport authorities and the Customs; providing logistics support for movement of goods etc. In the course of rendering these services, the assessee is making payments to shipping lines/airlines in relation to freight charges and terminal handling/ warehousing expenses to Container Freight Stations ( CFS ). The Assessing Officer asked assessee for the TDS compliance thereof, while making these payments and found that assessee didn t deduct any taxes at source and therefore, according to him, the assessee was in default for not deducting taxes at source on such payments. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses claimed by way of freight charges and CFS charges by invoking Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n payment made to CFS. It was the contention of the assessee that the views expressed by the Coordinate Bench at Chennai in favour of Department in the cases of Prahari Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.1701/Chny/2018), Shri Shanmugar Services vs. ITO (ITA No. 1136 1137/Chny/2017), Welgrow Line (India) p Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1719/Chny/2014), whereas, contrary views in favour of assessee were expressed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Cargo Linkers (179 Taxman 151) and Coordinate Benches of Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of M/s. Express Transport Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos. 1473 to 1475 /Mum/ 2013). Therefore, the proposal for constitution of Special Bench to resolve the conflicting views was placed before the Hon ble Presiden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Benches at Chennai on the issue viz., whether the payments being made by an intermediary on behalf of their principal were subject to Section 194C and consequently whether such non-deduction of tax on such payments would result in inviting rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee has abandoned this contention and conceded that it was acting as a principal and not as an intermediary. In the given circumstances the learned AR is also not placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we find that there is no alleged legal conflict involved in the present case, which is required to be resolved by this Special Bench. 7. On perusal of the above findings of the Special Bench, we have to decide the issue of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
