Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 549 - AT - Income TaxTDS on Transportation - held that:- the payments made by assessee are in the nature of purchase account and not transportation charges in respect to above four parties and once this is the position, the assessee is not liable to deduct any TDS under any of the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act. Once assessee is not liable or not under obligation to deduct TDS, no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Decided in favor of assessee. TDS on Testing & Certification - held that:- Assessee has deducted TDS in the last month of the previous year and paid on 31.10.2006 and hence assessee has complied with the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and qua this amount no disallowance is required. - In favor of assessee. TDS on Loading and unloading charges - a sum of Rs.5,97,500/- was capitalized and the balance amount was on account of payment of labour charges etc - held that:- the amount capitalized at Rs.5,97,500/- cannot be subject matter of TDS. Hence, the same should not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With respect to balance, the Assessing Officer will confirm the disallowance. - partly in favor of assessee. TDS on Agency charges, supervision documentation - held that:- no doubt no written contract is there, but the assessee has made payment on account of commission, service charges for documentation, custom clearance and supervision of loading, operation of vessels to clearing and forwarding agents. This clearly falls under the provisions of section 194C of the Act and liable to TDS u/s. 194C of the Act. - Decided against the assessee. Deemed dividend - shareholder - held that:- clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Act as it existed provided that if the loan is received by the shareholder, it is only then that the loan can be deemed to be dividend in his hands. The assessee firm was not the shareholder of the company and the partners of the firm were the shareholders in the books of the company. Therefore, the loan advanced by the company to the assessee firm could not be deemed to be dividend inasmuch as the loan was not to the shareholder but to the assessee who was not the shareholder in the books of the company. - Decision in ACIT, Circle-33 vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E] and CIT vs. Rajkumar Singh & Co. [2005 (7) TMI 91 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] followed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|