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 →

M/s Srivathsa Industries Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle XII, Chennai

2015 (12) TMI 1171 - ITAT CHENNAI

Disallowance towards purchase of leather - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of leather and leather garments. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that it purchased leather to the tune of ₹ 2,00,292/-. The assessee filed copies of the books of account for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. The Revenue authorities have not disputed the purchases made by the assessee. From the orders of the low .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance of commission paid to foreign agents - non deduction of TDS - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in manufacturing leather and leather garments. In order to market its product in foreign countries, the assessee engaged agents and paid commission to them. The question arises for consideration is whether the commission payment made by the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee to the agents outside India cannot be construed as fee for technical service. Hence, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax.- Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.1562/Mds/2015 - Dated:- 20-11-2015 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate For The Respondent : Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made an endorsement to this effect in the appeal folder. 3. Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that he has no objection to dismiss the ground with regard to disallowance of ₹ 5,99,266/- as not pressed. 4. In view of the above, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee with regard to disallowance of ₹ 5,99,266/- is rejected as not pressed and the addition made by the lower authority is confirmed. 5. The next ground of appeal is with regard to disallowanc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hased and the payment made by the assessee for purchases. However, ignoring the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that no confirmation letter was filed. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that no bank account of the assessee was produced before him to confirm the realization of the amount paid by the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee in fact purchased leather from M/s Azeem Leath .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

irmation from M/s Azeem Leather Exports. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that they could not contact the party concerned, therefore, the confirmation letter could not be filed. In the absence of any other material, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee, which was rightly confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Admittedly, the assessee en .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the manufacture of leather and leather garments. Without purchasing the leather, it cannot manufacture leather garments. When the purchase is not doubted, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to doubt the payment. In those circumstances, in view of the smallness of the amount of ₹ 2,00,292/-, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition of ₹ 2,00,292 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e not rendered any service in India. Therefore, the payment made to foreign agents is not taxable in India, hence, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax under any of the provisions of Income-tax Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 155. 11. On the contrary, Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee admittedly paid commission to foreign agents. According to the Ld. .....

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