TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) it is not clear as to how payments represented reimbursement of expenditure. The order of CIT(A) is not a reasoned and speaking order. Since AO has given a clear finding that no evidence had been produced regarding reimbursement of expenditure CIT(A) was required to give opportunity to AO regarding any evidence produced in support of reimbursement of expenditure - order of CIT(A) can not be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges on account of M/s.FGI A/c. Treasury Forbes div., M/s. Forbes Gotak Limited and M/s. Forbes Patvolk. The AO observed that the retainership charges were in the nature of professional charges. Therefore, tax was required to be deducted under section 194J. The AO therefore, asked the assessee to furnish the details of tax deducted at source. The assessee vide letter dated 8.12.2009 submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from which CIT(A) noted that the debit notes had been raised for expenses like telephone, courier boy, miscellaneous office expenses like zerox charges, stationery charges, use of water, flower etc. CIT(A) therefore, concluded that the payments were reimbursement charges and not for any promotional charges, therefore, TDS provisions were not applicable. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the addition ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence before CIT(A). 4. We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding disallowance of expenses on the ground of non deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs.33,65,235/- paid to M/s. Forbes Gotak Ltd. Before the AO assessee vide letter dated 8.12.2009 submitted that the payments were of the nature of reimbursement of expenditure to which TDS provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
