TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered by the clearing agent - Held that:- It is a fact that if the assessee reimbursed the expenses towards freight incurred on its behalf under an agreement for which separate bills is raised, and to such payments the provision of section 194 of the I.T.Act is not attracted. See INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus DR. WILLMAR SCHWABE INDIA PVT. LTD. [2005 (3) TMI 398 - ITAT DELHI-D] - As when it is not disputed that the said amount has been incurred for reimbursement of the expenses deletion of the addition confirmed - in favor of assessee. - ITA Nos.916/Kol/2011 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2013 - P. K. Bansal And Sri Mahavir Singh,JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K.N.Jana, JCIT, Sr.DR ORDER Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities below. We have also gone through the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shippoing Transports vs ADIT, Range-I, Visakhapatnam. We noted that the decision of this Special Bench is clearly applicable in the case of the assessee. We accordingly delete the addition of Rs.2,90,600/- and ground no. 1 stand allowed. 6. Ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.45,90,312/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. AR in regard referred to the order of the AO and brought our attention to the paper book and contended that the expenses represented only the reimbursement of the customs clearance expenses incurred by both the parties. The expenditure does not represent the payment being made for the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contractor, where contract is either a work contract of a contract for supply of labour for works contract. In the case before us, we observe that the assessee has reimbursed the expenses to its consignment agent and it was not a direct payment of freight by the assessee to the transporter. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds of appeal taken by the department." 8.1. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench when it is not disputed that the said amount has been incurred for reimbursement of the expenses we delete the addition of Rs.45,90,312/-. Ground No.2 is allowed. 9. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
