Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 738 - AT - Income TaxNon-deduction of TDS on consultancy charges – Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – Whether the payment is purely for consultancy & not reimbursement of the expenses – Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that as per the agreement entered into by this assessee with the concerned Authority it is a compulsory payment to be made as a reimbursement - On this amount, obviously Section 194J is not applicable – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Non-deduction of TDS on hire charges – Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that the assessee made entire payment towards hiring of trucks for the shifting of plant from one place to another place - provisions of section 194C are not applicable as decided in Merilyn Shipping & Transports VS. ACIT [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] - provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable only to amounts of expenditure which are payable as on 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenses which have been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of TDS - the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Non-deduction of TDS on payments for Sign Boards - Whether the payment is towards a works-contract or not - Held that:- s decided in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that the CIT(A) has rightly observed that there is no evidence on record to show that these payments are not for 'contract for sale' and are for 'contract for work' - the finding of the CIT(A) is cursory and he has mainly relied on the narration on the bills but he has not gone into the real aspect of the controversy - this issue has not been correctly investigated into and examined by the AO – thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of revenue. Cancellation of order u/s 201(1) – Held that:- ITO (TDS), Udaipur created the demand u/s 201(1) of the Act only on the basis that the AO while passing the assessment orders for the assessment years held that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on account of plant shifting charges, consultancy charges, hire charges etc. However, those disallowances made by the AO were deleted upto the level of ITAT and at present no such disallowances are in existence, therefore, CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the demand created by the ITO (TDS), Udaipur u/s. 201(1) of the Act – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|