Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1357 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - treatment to "Vasco sports club" and "Cause of our joy" - whether are not advertisement agencies and therefore the assessee-company is not liable for deduction of TDS u/s. 194C in respect of payments made to the above parties towards sponsorship and publicity? - Held that:- Admittedly, a perusal of the provisions of Sec. 194C of the Act clearly shows that the said provision has been amended w.e.f. 1.10.2009 whereby TDS has been made liable in respect of advertisements at 1%. As the said amendment has taken place only w.e.f. 1.10.2009 relevant to the A.Y 2010-11 and the assessment year under appeal is A.Y 2008-09, the said provisions of Sec. 194C would not attract to the said two payments made by the Assessee to Vasco Sports Club and ‘Cause of our joy’. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the deletion as made by the ld. CIT(A) is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Money paid to the workers of the port - allowable business expenditure - Held that:- the Assessee is unable to even prove that the said amounts have been disbursed in the course of the business of the Assessee and was incurred for the purpose of the business of the Assessee. True, the payment of speed money to the workers at the port cannot be treated as an illegal payment and consequently, the explanation to Sec. 37(1) would not apply. However, it is for the Assessee to prove that the said money has been paid to the workers of the port. Just by saying that the payments have been made to the workers in the port does not substantiate the claim. It should be supported with some documentary evidences. The port area is a secured area. The workers there would have names and would be given identification cards. ID numbers would atleast be available. Even these have not been provided by the Assessee. As the Assessee has not been able to prove the basic fact that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of the business of the Assessee and that the payments made were disbursed to the port workers, we are of the view that the disallowance made by the AO is liable to be restored - Decided against assessee
|