TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. For ready reference, Grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 are reproduced hereunder: i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was under no liability to deduct tax u/s 1941 of Income Tax Act 1961 and deleting the terminal Hiring/handling charges determined by the AO u/s 201(1) of the Act without considering in the alternative applicability of the provisions of sec. 194C of the Income Tax Act 1961. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was under no liability to deduct tax u/s 194I of Income Tax Act 1961 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand on account of short deduction of tax on payments of Terminal Handling charges, Container Freight Station charges and BPT charges does not fall within the purview of section u/s. 1941 of the LT. Act., without appreciating the factual and legal matrix of the case, as clearly brought out by the A.O. in his order u/s. 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. vi) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 on the short deduction of tax determined by the AO as the tax determined has already been deleted by him and interest deletion is consequential to the quantum deletion for which furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised by the shipping companies, specifically importer/exporter to whom the goods belonged. The payment to these shipping companies or agents made by the assessee were on behalf and on account of their clients for which reimbursement were claimed by the assessee. It does not constitute the expenditure of the assessee. Therefore, the definition of 'rent' as set out in Explanation 1 to section 194I is not applicable at all. 4. Regarding container freight station charges (CFS), the assessee submitted that these are statutory expenses and TDS is not deductible as the same are paid to steamer companies and CFS to promote the removal of the material from the ship/steamer. The charges were paid on behalf of importer, which were reimbursed to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Charges, it has been held that TDS deductible is under section 194C and not u/s 194I. In support, he strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Universal Traffic Co. and M/s Express Transport Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1426 to 1429/Mum/2013 and 1473 to 1475/Mum/2013 order dated 17.12.2014. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. The AO has treated assessee in default with regard to non-deduction of tax at source in case of terminal handling charges, container freight station charges, Mumbai Port trust charges and Crane/Forklift charges. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a categori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It does not represent expenditure of the assessee but the expenditure of the clients handled by the assessee and it is only reimbursement of actual expense. Further, the goods, which passed through CFS do not belonged to the assessee and the services provided for handling till the clearance of the custom was not availed or utilized by the assessee but by the owner of the goods. The finding of the CIT(A) as given in Para 3.17 to 3.25 are upheld. Regarding payments for grant of Crane/Forklift charges, the assessee's case has been that, it is not rented any crane/Forklift albeit it engages the services of crane operators/contractors for loading/unloading of goods. The contractors engaged to use local labours to move the goods and use of crane/....