Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 60 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 195 - Revenue’s case before us is that the assessee had failed to place on record any non-deduction of TDS certificate u/s. 195(1) - services rendered in India - Held that:- We find no merit in the instant argument. The fact remains that there is no material on record indicating the assessee’s payees to have rendered any service in India so as to be assessable in India. Hon'ble Madras high court in case CIT vs. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] holds that section 9(1)(i) r. w. s section 9(1)(vii) of the Act does not apply in absence of any services rendered in India. Chapter XVII of the Act applies only in case the payments in issue are taxable in the hands of overseas recipients’ hands in India and not otherwise. The assessee has also succeeded on the very issue in preceding assessment year 2007-08 as well. - decided in favour of assessee Disallowing assessee’s stores and spares consumption claims - Held that:- The assessee has been consistently succeeding on the very issue since preceding assessment years regarding its claim of consumption of stores and spares comprising of various facilities offered to workmen in all of its tea estates. There is no rebuttal forthcoming to the clinching figures of comparison qua the impugned expenditure vis-a-vis the three preceding assessment years hereinabove. The Assessing Officer appears to have conducted remand proceedings wherein he could not find out even a single irregularity in assessee’s books of account as well as all other details produced. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s finding under the challenge in this instant common issue in these two assessment years - decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of nursery expenditure - revenue or capital expenditure - Revenue’s only argument is that such nursery expenditure as the one in hand before us ought not to have been treated as a revenue item of claim in the lower appellate proceedings - Held that:- Coming to enduring advantage spread over number of years hon'ble apex court’s decision in Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2015 (3) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT] rejects Revenue’s similar reasoning in concluding that such an approach does not form a justifiable ground to reject a claim of revenue expenditure. We further reiterate that hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Tasati Tea Ltd [2003 (2) TMI 42 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] also holds similar expenditure to be revenue in nature. - decided in favour of assessee Sales promotion expenditure disallowance - Held that:- Failure to dispute the fact that the impugned sum of ₹9, 48, 411/- forms a minuscule percentage of the total claim amounting to ₹15, 41, 48, 965/- i. e. less than 1% of the total figure. The relevant payees’ count is more than 100 involving corresponding sums of ₹4, 000/- to ₹9, 000/-. The assessee has categorized all of them as small parties. The fact also remains that the assessee has also not been able to file all the relevant details of regarding these alleged small parties. We therefore conclude in larger interest of justice that a lump sum disallowance of ₹1. 00 lakh out of the impugned figure of ₹9, 48, 411/-would be just and proper in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in preceding or succeeding assessment year.
|