Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2213 - AT - Income TaxScope of appeal u/s 248 - Ascertainment of tax withholding liability from three foreign remittances made by the assessee - Appeal by person denying liability to deduct tax in certain cases - Whether CIT(A) has erred in issuing the direction U/s.248 of the Act that there is no liability to withhold tax under Sec.195 of the Act on the foreign remittances made? - HELD THAT:- The payment is not for incidental enrichment of experience of the assessee, even if that be so, but for receipt of services by way of review, supervision and consultancy. The consideration for the payments in question is the review, supervision and consultancy services and not for such an incidental enrichment, even if that be, of experience. These services donot make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. DR in any case, has not brought on record any material to etc in the sense of transfer of suck knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process etc. In any case, learned Departmental Representative has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that there was any transfer of the skills of service provider to the recipient of services. The arguments raised by the appellant are based on sweeping generalizations and are not supported by any specific evidences in support of the same. Objection against admission of additional evidence, one has to bear in mind the fact that every evidence produced in an appeal against 248, when it is not in the backdrop of a specific order under section 195, is a new evidence in the sense that such appellate proceedings are the original proceedings in that extent. When no objections are raised by the Assessing Officer to the admission of these appeal by the CIT(A) under section 248, without a specific order passed under section 195, grievances raised against the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) are devoid of legally sustainable merits - no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) - Appeal dismissed.
|