TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1206/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2014 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Smt. P. Madhavi Devi,JJ. For the Appellant : Smt. K. Haritha For the Respondent : Sri Sridhar Garimella ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, AM: The above appeals by the Revenue are directed against different orders of the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad dated 9.5.2013 for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since the issue raised in both the appeals is identical, these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The common effective ground raised by the Revenue is as under: (2) The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made for non deduction of tax on the payment made to HPCL GA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments is as under: (a) M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Rs. 52,92,512 (b) M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) - Rs. 50,00,000 6. It is noticed by the Assessing Officer that similar payments were claimed in Asst. Years 2007-08 2008-09 also. In those years, it was held that the payments were attracted by the provision of section 194C warranting deduction of tax at source from these payments. As the assessee company did not effect TDS on these payments, the claim of expense was disallowed by invoking provision of section 40(a)(ia). During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to state whether such payments made to HPCL GAIL were subjected to TDS and the assessee replied in the negative. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. However after incorporation of the JVC, all such expenses shall be reimbursed by JVC to the parties with interest. From the above, it can be seen that GAIL and HPCL had agreed to support the assessee in carrying on its business. 10. As part of this agreement GAIL and HPCL deputed their personnel to work for the JVC. Employees so deputed worked for the JVC. The JVC is liable to pay salaries to the deputed personnel. However for administrative convenience, GAIL and HPCL had paid the salaries to the deputed employees and the Assessee reimbursed the amount paid by GAIL and HPCL. 11. GAIL and HPCL deputed their personnel who worked under the control and management of JVC. The employees were carrying out the work of the Assessee as its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses are not subject to tax deduction at source. The following decisions also support the case of the assessee: 1) CIT v Industrial Engineering Projects(P) Ltd., 202 ITR 1014( Del) 2) CIT v Siemens, 310 ITR 320 (Bom.) 3) CIT v Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd., 003-TIOL-283-HC-KOL-IT 13. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we delete the addition made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia). 8. Against these findings, the Revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the above order of the Tribunal (cited supra). Accordingly, taking a consistent view of this matter, we are inclined to uphold the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
