Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1419 - AT - Income TaxNon deduction of tds on payment made to the shipping companies - Held that:- Similar issue has already been covered by this co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 wherein held where payments are made to agents of non-resident ship-owners or charters for carriage of passengers etc. shipped at a port in India, since the agent acts on behalf of the non-resident shipowner or charterer, he steps into the shoes of the principal. Accordingly, provisions of Section 172 of the Act shall apply and those of sections 194C and 195 of the Act will not apply. Payment made to non-resident in respect of advertisement of products - non deduction of tds - Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 Section 7 & 9 of the Act provides the income deemed to be received AND income deemed to accrue or arise in India. As per the section 9 of the Act, the above expenses for advertisement in Russia and commission payment to foreign parties/ NRI are not the income deemed to accrue or arise in India, Hence not chargeable to tax. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT-A restricting the disallowance to the extent of 1% of the exempted income - Held that:- AO has invoked the provision of Sec. 14A has made the disallowance under Rule 8D of the IT Rule without recording any satisfaction. We also find that assessee has sufficient fund in making investment in Indian companies. Therefore we can infer borrowed money has not been utilized in investment in Indian companies. AO has applied the formula given under Rule 8D of the IT Rules even on those investments which were made in foreign companies of the assessee without appreciating that the dividend income from foreign companies is not exempted to tax. Disallowance cannot be made for the investment made in foreign companies. We find that L’d CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance as per Rule 8D of IT Rules after taking into account the investment made in the Indian companies and for this reason, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Addition on employees’ contribution of PF - delayed payment - Held that:- Before us both the parties relied on the orders of Authorities Below as favourable to them. Considering the above facts and circumstances and relied on the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. ( 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT) in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. Addition on account of expense u/s 14A to ascertain book profit u/s 115JB - Held that:- Provisions to Sec. 115JB are starred with a non obstante clause which has overriding effect on the other provisions of Act. Disallowance made under any other provision cannot be imported to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act. In this connection, we rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court), we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Even otherwise, the assessee’s issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra). We uphold the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee Revenue appeal dismissed.
|