TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s any inflation in the purchases Disallowance cannot be made on the basis of estimation Decided against Revenue. Commission paid to non-resident Held that:- The commission has been paid to non-resident outside India for services rendered outside India Following G.E India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] CBDT Circular No. 786 dated 07-07-2000 as also Circular no. 23 dated 23-7-1969 clarifies that where the non-resident agent operates outside India, no part of his income arises in India - Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of supervision charges, export expenses, packing expenses, lorry hire charges and motor car and telephone expenses Held that:- All the disallowance are made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) has erred in law as well as in facts by allowing the relief of disallowance of Rs.1,31,375/- made by AO under the head purchase of lac and Shellac. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts by allowing the relief of disallowance of Rs. 94,776/- made by AO under the head commission. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts by allowing the relief of disallowance of Rs.3,00,000/- made by AO under different heads. 4. In regard to ground no.1, which was against the action of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the relief of the disallowance of Rs.80,84,781/- made by the AO by holding that provision of section 172 was applicable and no deduction u/s. 194C or 195 was required to be made leading t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er drew our attention to the order of the learned CIT(A), wherein the learned CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that the AO himself has mentioned the nature of work carried out by the shipping companies and their agents. It was the submission that Circular no. 723 dtd. 19-9-1995 issued by the CBDT covers the facts of this case. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue was liable to be upheld. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the assessee has made the payments towards shipping business of the non-residents through shipping agents. Special procedures are provided u/s. 172 of the Act for payment of taxes in case of any shipping owners or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance was liable to be made. He has vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the same. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A) show that even though the details were filed before the AO, no defects have been pointed out by the AO to show that there was any inflation in the purchases. In the absence of any specific defect or any specific inflation of the local purchases pointed out by the AO, no estimated disallowance can be made. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. The same is hereby upheld. This ground of revenue's appeal st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the learned CIT(A). 13. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the AO has accepted that Shri Omar Chirabi is a non resident, who has rendered his services out side India. A perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) as also the reply of the assessee before the AO clearly show that the payment to Shri Omar Chirabi has been made outside India. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the income of Shri Omar Chirabi is not taxable in India in view of the said CBDT Circulars (refer to supra) as also the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd (refer to supra). In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove. C.O No. 30/Kol/2011 [in ITA No. 686/Kol/11] A.Y 2008-09 (by the assessee) 18. In this cross objection, the assessee has raised the following effective ground :- "For that, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,85,825/- made by ld. AO out of claim expenditure under the head foreign travelling." 19. In regard to this ground, which was against the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,85,825/- made by the AO out of claim of expenditure under the head 'foreign travelling', it was the submission by the learned AR for the assessee that the assessee's husband, Shri Sushil Kumar Saraf had travelled to various plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
