TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinstatement fees Rs.5,000/- on 3/12/2007, as earlier short paid were allowable during the year under consideration as these expenses were first time arose and crystallized during this year. Similarly, the was allowable during the year under consideration itself as these expenses cannot be termed as prior period expenses - in favour of assessee. Non deduction of TDS - parking charges for reserved car parking - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - 194C v/s 194I - Held that:- Car parking comes u/s 194I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the applicability of the TDS provisions. However, from the facts, it is found that there is nothing on record which shows that the parking space was earmarked for the assessee - copy of the letter from Bharat Hotels Limited dated 26.04.2007 also did not mention anything about earmarking of the parking slot, it only states that inside the main gate entrance of World Trade Centre. Such arrangements cannot be said as a letting out of land.. It can be only a contract between the two independent parties for allowing vehicle to be parked inside the premises. Therefore, the provisions of section 194I are not applicable. Such payments for contractual obligations c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to deduct tax at source as the payment made was less than Rs.120000 p.a. u/s 194I of the Act. c) The Ld. CIT - (A) has erred in concluding that the amount paid for reserved parking is payment u/s 194C and not 1941 of the Act, and totally ignoring the ratio of judgement laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Asian Airlines, United Airlines Vs CIT (2006) 287 ITR 281 and CIT Vs Japan Airlines Co. Ltd (2008) 325 ITR 298 wherein it has been held that payment made by an airlines for landing charges and parking charges to Airport Authority of India are in the nature of rent and hence, assessee airline would be liable to deduct tax at source under section 194I and not 194C of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or forego any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1 4 are general in nature. These were also not pressed during the hearing, hence dismissed. 4. In the ground no.2(a) (b), the issue involved is confirming the addition of Rs.50,000/- paid to the Delhi Stock Exchange during the financial year relevant to Assessment Year under consideration. 5. During the year, ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, the claim of the appellant that a request for delisting was made in the year 2002, however, the demand for the payment was made by the DSE in the year 2007, is not acceptable. The appellant has not been able to establish that the request was actually made in the year 2002. Further, the letter dated 4.6.2007 of the DSE has referred to the non compliance continuing for the period from 31.3.2002 till 31.3.2007 meaning thereby that the liability to such payments had got created in the respective financial years. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs.50,000/- in fact pertained to the earlier years and thus has been rightly disallowed by the Id. AO. Accordingly, ground no. 2 is rejected. 6. We have heard both the sides on the issue. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. The details of expenditure disallowed is as under :- S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Paid towards fees for revocation of suspension of trading of shares of the assessee company w.e.f. 16/12/2004 on 7/6/2007 10,000/- 2. Paid towards the listing fees upto 31/12/2004 Rs.10,000/-, for 2005 Rs.5,000/-, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of fees for revocation of suspension of trading of shares of Rs.10,000/- and payment towards condonation fees of Rs.5,000/- and reinstatement fees of Rs.5,000/- were allowable during the year under consideration as these expenses were first time arose and crystallized during this year. Similarly, the processing fee of Rs.10,000/- also arise and crystallized during the year hence pertains to the year under consideration. As far as listing fee for period upto 31.12.2004 of Rs.10,000/- and listing fee of Rs.5000/- each for 2005 and 2006 are concerned, we would like to say that the assessee had made an application on 17.01.2002 for delisting of its securities from the Delhi Stock Exchange. The application was made on 17.01.2002. The assessee was under the bonafide belief that he has not to make any payment towards the listing fees. Revenue has also not brought on record anything which could show that the listing fee for these years was demanded in earlier years. In view of these facts, we hold that the listing fees paid for period upto 31.12.2004, 2005 2006 arose and crystallized during the year under consideration. In view of these facts, we hold that the total expenditure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
