Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 605 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 40a(ia) - Works contract - Payment made to printers - TDS not deducted - Held that:- As far as the payment to printer is concerned, it is found that M/s. Jayant Printary had printed labels for chutney and other materials that were sold/exported by the assessee. Material for the labels was procured by the printer though the specification of the printing material was given by the assessee-company - it cannot be held that it was a work contract - Following decision of The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue. Supply of mango slices - Non-deduction of tax - Held that:- assessee had not paid nay amount to procurement agencies.In the present case, it appears that assessee had paid commission to HAKAMC as per the bills issued by the HAKAMC.It is not clear from the order of the AO/FAA as what was the nature of commission paid to HAKAMC.We feel that this aspect needs further verification. Whether the commission was paid only for carrying out certain processing activities or it was paid for procuring the mangoes on behalf of the assessee .This vital fact is not clear from the bills or the order of the lower authorities - Matter is restored back - Decided in favour of Revenue. Disallowance expenses incurred through Credit Cards - Expenditure made on name of Directors - Held that:- AO had dis-allowed the said expenditure because he was of the opinion that expenditure was not incurred for wholly and exclusively for the business purpose. He has not alleged that expenditure incurred by the Directors was of personal nature. He has not brought on record anything to prove that said expenditure was not incurred for business purpose of the company. Mere making an allegation is not sufficient for fastening tax liability to an assessee. FAA had given a categorical finding that expenditure incurred on Credit Cards issued by the company was allowable expenditure.In our opinion,his order does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity - Decided against Revenue.
|