TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified. - Decided against the assessee. - I.T.T.A. No. 288 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2013 - Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And K C Bhanu, JJ. JUDGEMENT:- PER: Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 08.02.2012 and sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that the payments have been artificially broken up to avoid the TDS provisions? 2. Whether reimbursement of expenditure can be treated as consideration and taxed? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipment. As per the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, M/s. Ushakiran Movies Limited will market the shooting locations, sets and various other facilities including equipment of the assessee. For such services to be rendered, M/s. Ushakiran Movies Limited was entitled to receive from the assessee commission of 15% on the bills raised. In addition to this, clause 16 of the Memorandum of Understanding provides that the assessee shall reimburse M/s. Ushakiran Movies Limited all the charges/costs for utilizing the infrastructural facilities such as internal and external road network, parking facilities, water, power and communication facilities. It is thus clear from the Memorandum of Understanding that payment has to be made for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, it is not clear that which portion of the payment was made for infrastructural facilities. But, whatever may be the position, the payment has been made and the tax could have been deducted at source. In view of the fact finding of the learned Tribunal, we are unable to admit the appeal, as the learned Tribunal has correctly held that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source from the payment made to M/s. Ushakiran Movies Limited and therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2010) 10 SCC 29 and drawn our attention to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
