Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1) , Panaji, Goa Versus M/s Orchid Biomedical Systems, M/s. Zephyr Biomedicals

2015 (11) TMI 1361 - ITAT PANAJI

TDS u/s 194C - breaking-up the bill into reimbursement and charges - payment made by the assessee towards freight to Forwarding and Clearing Agents - non deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The bills raised are clear-cut bills raised on the Assessees herein and they do contain the break-up of the various heads but nowhere is there a claim of reimbursement. Further, when a bill is raised by a Clearing and Forwarding agent on an Assessee, the bills is a consolidated bill. The Assessee can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of TDS. Further, in the Assessees' own case for the earlier assessment year, on identical facts the co-ordinate bench of this Triunal had already taken decision and no change in facts have also been brought to the attention of the Tribunal. In fact, both the ld. DR and the ld. AR on behalf of the Assessees admit that the facts remain the same. - Decided in favour of revenue - ITA No. 298, 299/PNJ/2015 - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - N. S. Saini, AM And George Mathan, JM For the Appellant : Pramod Y V .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

013-14 dt. 20.3.2015 for the A.Y 2011-12. Shri Pramod Y. Vaidya, Advocate alongwith Shri Manjunath Hegde, CA & Shri Lorence J. Malekar, CA represented on behalf of the Assessees and Shri Siddappaji R.N, ld. DR represented on behalf of the Revenue. 2. As the issues in both the appeals are identical, same are disposed off by this common order. 3. In the Revenue's appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds : "1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in not appreciating the fact that the jurisdictional Panaji Bench of ITAT, in the assessee's own case, has confirmed the order of the AO and set aside the order of CIT(A) on the said issue, vide its order in ITA No.122/PNJ/2014, dated 16.01.2015, for A.Y. 2009-10. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed in this case by Panaji Bench of ITAT for an earlier A.Y. on the same issue, even though he is bound to follow decisions of superior legal authorities. 6. For these and o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submission that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the Assessees' own case in ITA No. 122/PNJ/2014 in the case of M/s. Orchid Biomedical Systems and in ITA Nos. 121 & 309/PNJ/2014 in the case of M/s. Zephyr Biomedicals vide order dt. 16.1.2015. It was the submission that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal had reversed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and had upheld the disallowance made by the AO. 5. In reply, the ld. AR submitted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

considered the rival submissions. The claim of the Assessees that the payments to the Clearing and Forwarding agents were only reimbursement would not help the case of the Assessees insofar as none of the bills of the Clearing and Forwarding agents show that the expenses claimed were Clearing and Forwarding expenses. In fact, the bills raised are clear-cut bills raised on the Assessees herein and they do contain the break-up of the various heads but nowhere is there a claim of reimbursement. Fur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m of the Assessee that the expenses are reimbursement and consequently are not liable for TDS would not be a ground for non-deduction of TDS. Further, in the Assessees' own case for the earlier assessment year, on identical facts the co-ordinate bench of this Triunal had already taken decision and no change in facts have also been brought to the attention of the Tribunal. In fact, both the ld. DR and the ld. AR on behalf of the Assessees admit that the facts remain the same. In these circums .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version