TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding company of ₹ 51.91 lacs is not rent but is merely a reimbursement of expenses. Consequently, the occasion to apply Section 195 of the Act does not arise. This concurrent finding of fact is not shown to be perverse. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration and the appeal seeks to challenge concurrent findings of fact. - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the fact that alleged rent payment was made without deduction of TDS, and hence was clearly disallowable as per Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 3 During the course of assessment proceedings for the subject assessment year, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had paid ₹ 51.91 lacs towards the use of infrastructure to its holding company M/s.Prime Securities Ltd. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the entire payment of ₹ 51.91 lacs under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. 4 On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the respondent assessee's appeal. It rendered a finding of fact that the payment made by the respondent assessee to its holding company was only in the nature of reimbursement of its expenditure and not payment of rent. In support, the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore in the absence of tax being deducted at source would be hit by Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7 We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal has reached a concurrent finding of fact that the payment made by the respondent assessee to its holding company of ₹ 51.91 lacs is not rent but is merely a reimbursement of expenses. Consequently, the oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
