9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied maintenance expenses. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the decision of the Ld CIT(A) does not seem to be reasonable in view of the observations and findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. CIT AP 239 ITR 587 (SC). 3. That the appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of trading of herbal and neutraceuticals. The return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed declaring loss of `.27,23,595/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der an obligation to reimburse to M/s Whyte Mideast for the expenses incurred by it in relation to business development and marketing of appellant's products. 3. That no part of the payment made by the appellant represented income of M/s Whyte Mideast. 4. That the nature and spirit of arrangement between the assessee party was to compensate the non resident company for the business promotion and other expenses incurred by it for and on behalf of the appellant. 5. That the amount paid or payable to non resident should first be chargeable to tax in the hands of payee as the payment or deduction of pre and post assessment taxes contemplates the existence of tax liability. Since the amount paid to the non resident is not chargeable to tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinting and stationery, telephone & telefax, traveling expenses and manpower, administrative and communication expenses in respect of Dubai office. The appellant has submitted that these were expenses incurred on behalf of the appellant and the appellant has only reimbursed them. The Assessing Officer has not brought any positive evidence on record to establish that it was not the reimbursement of the expenses. The Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 7 Taxman.com. 80(SC) has held that section 195(2) is not merely a provision to provide information to the ITO(TDS), it is a provision requiring tax to be deducted at source to be paid to the revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non resident, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents made to a non resident as the income in the hands of such non resident is not tasxable in India. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the payment of `.28,38,957/- was made as reimbursement of expenses which was per the terms & conditions of agreement entered into between the payer and payee and further the payment was made to a non resident company which is situated outside India. The CIT(A) has rightly observed that these were expenses incurred on behalf of appellant and the appellant has only reimbursed them and further the Assessing Officer had not brought any positive evidence on record to establish that it was not reimbursement of expenses. The CIT(A) has further rightly considered the fact in the case of G.E. India Tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
