9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from one M/s Kaleast Bottling Pvt. Ltd. ('KBPL') on which TDS @ 2% was deducted. It was found that this amount was not offered for taxation in the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings requisite question was asked. The assessee replied that this amount was received by the assessee for distribution of incentives to wholesalers under the company sale promotion scheme. For this engagement with the company, he received a retainer-ship fee of Rs. 3,00,000/- for distribution of incentives, which were distributed only by cheques. Thus a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- being retainer-ship fee was offered to tax and the said amount of Rs. 81,39,639/- had no element of income for the assessee as it was meant only for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the correct amount of incentives to be awarded to the recipient and distributed by the assessee. The assessee carries on this activity in the name of M/s Zebaish, the amount was by KBPL to Zebaish which in turn issued cheques from its account to the recipients as per the agreed policy. In this backdrop the said amount was received in this assessment year for onward distribution. The assessee also produced monthly statement of data. The necessary proof of payment before the assessing officer, besides the confirmation from KBPL, confirming this arrangement, engagement and onward payment of incentives was also produced. It was further argued that the assessee paid Rs. 81,39,639/- against which it received following amounts from KBPL (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. Ld. DR supported the order of assessing officer. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions, which, in particular are as under: (i) The role of the assessee to disburse the incentives on behalf of KBPL is demonstrated by the agreement and confirmation produced from KBPL. (ii) There is no allegation that assessee did not distribute the amount of incentives to various recipients as they are through a/c payee cheques. (iii) It has no where been held that the arrangement was not genuine or sham. The disallowance has been made only on the assumption that the recipients were numerous and it was not possible to verify them and TDS is deducted by KBPL. For this narration no fault can be attributed to the assessee as the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
