Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (1) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vs. Cargo Linkers (2008 (3) TMI 619 - DELHI HIGH COURT) from the nature of the contract between the parties concerned it was found as a matter of fact that the contract was actually between the exporter and the airline, and the assessee was only an intermediary. It was, therefore, held that the assessee is not a person responsible for deduction of tax at source in terms of sec. 194C. Thus the present assessee, who is carrying on the business of clearing and forwarding agents, is not a person responsible for deducting the tax at source in terms of sec. 194C as the assessee is only an intermediary between the exporters and the shipping lines and it merely facilitates the contract for carrying the goods - provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) canno .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penses in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Assessee took up the matter in appeal and CIT(A) deleted the impugned additon against which department has come up appeal. 5. Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, submitted that the issue is squarely covered by ITAT, Delhi C bench decision in the case of Hah Logistics vs. DCIT in I.T.A. No.1864/Del./2011 for assessment year 2008-09 dated 04.11.2011 and by placing copy of the said order it was pleaded for deciding the issue in favour of the assessee as it is a covered issue. 6. Ld.DR could not controvert this factual aspect, but relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer to plead for restoration of Assessing Officer s order. 7. After hearing both the sides, conside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tation) Charges for handling the cargo in yard. The maximum charges as payable to shipping lines in this regard are fixed by port authorities. The shipping companies cannot charge more than the rates as given by port authorities. 11. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that there was no contract between the shipping lines and the assessee firm in the nature of a work specified in sec. 194C of the Act. He further clarified that the bills for specified services were raised by shipping lines in the name of the ultimate consumer as per the terms and conditions agreed upon between them, and the assessee firm as a clearing and forwarding agent has nothing to do with the components of the bills raised by the shipping lines on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deduct tax at source even if the expenses incurred by the assessee were reimbursed by the assessee s client. 13. The rival contentions of both the parties have been considered and orders of the authorities below have been perused. We have also gone through the various papers and documents containing 77 pages placed in the paper book filed by the assessee. 14. It is not in dispute that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding agent. The goods of assessee s client, who are exporter or importer, were exported or imported by the shipping companies. The shipping companies raised bill for various charges against the ultimate exporter or importer, who are the client of the assessee. The amount mentioned in the b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cargo Linkers (supra), where the Hon ble High Court was in agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal, which mainly decided an issue of fact, namely, the nature of the contract between the parties concerned, and it was found as a matter of fact that the contract was actually between the exporter and the airline, and the assessee was only an intermediary. It was, therefore, held that the assessee is not a person responsible for deduction of tax at source in terms of sec. 194C of the Act. Relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cargo Linkers (supra) we hold that the present assessee, who is carrying on the business of cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates