Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 614 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds - payment of preservation charges - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that Assessee has paid preservation charges to the cold storage, the aggregate of the payments/credit to the account. During the relevant time, subsection (5) and proviso of Section 194C provided that no deduction of TDS was required from the amounts paid or credited if the sum did not exceed ₹ 20,000/- or the aggregate of the amounts of sums credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year did not exceed ₹ 50,000/-. In the present case, we are of the view that since the amount credited/paid during the year was ₹ 1,96,945/-, which was in excess of the monetary limit prescribed under subsection (5) and in proviso, the exemption from non-deduction of TDS would not be applicable. - Decided in favour of assessee. Deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) - Held that:- We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajkumar (2009 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) has held that trade advances which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction would not fall with the ambit of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) has also held that amount advanced for business transaction do not fall within the definition of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the agreement entered by the Assessee with Vaibhav Corporation was not a genuine agreement. In view of these facts, we are of the view that in the present case no addition u/s.2(22)(e) could be made. We therefore set aside the addition made by A.O. and thus this ground of Assessee is allowed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|