TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 46,419/- made to Albatross CFS Pvt. Ltd. 3. That the addition / disallowance made are illegal, unjust and bad in law and are based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record. 4. That the evidence and submissions filed and materials available on record have not been properly construed and judiciously interpreted, hence the addition/ disallowance made is uncalled for. 2. We find that the issue involved in the aforesaid grounds is as to whether assessee was liable to deduct TDS in respect of payment of ₹ 46,419/- made to Albatross CFS Pvt. Ltd. 3. The relevant facts are that a payment of ₹ 46,419/- was made by the assessee in two parts, the first payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1995 which provides clarifications on various provisions relating to tax deduction at source. He referred question no. 30 and reply thereto. In reply to question no. 30, the CBDT has clarified that reimbursement cannot be deducted out of the bill amount for the purpose of tax deduction at source. He submitted that question no. 30 was raised with regard to submission of gross amount of the bill including reimbursement. The said clarification of CBDT applies only if there is a composite bill which does not deferentiate between the reimbursement and other sum. However, where there is separate bill for reimbursement then TDS provision is not applicable to said payment. He also referred CBDT circular no. 714 dated 3.8.1995 wherein in Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dger account of inland haulage/THC of the period, reply by assessee furnished during the course of assessment along with copies of documents like account of inland haulage payee/THC and detail thereof, account of freight outward, and details thereof, account of business promotion and details thereof, account of port lift expenses and details thereof, and account of TDS payable and TDS return with Annexure thereof. The ld. DR also placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Bharti Shipping yard Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2011) 11 ITR (Trib) 599 2. Milk Specialities Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 207 Taxman 337 (P H) 8. The ld. AR submitted further that no amount is payable at the end of 31.3.2007. In support he placed reliance on the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred by the said consultants were separately raised by them on the assessee company in addition to bills for fees payable on account of technical services and since the amount of bills so raised was towards the actual expenses incurred by them, there was no element of any profit involved in the said bills. It was thus a clear case of reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the assessee and the same, therefore, was not of the nature of payment covered by section 194J requiring the assessee to deduct tax at source therefrom. The CBDT Circular No. 715, dated 8.8.1995 relied upon by the Assessing Officer in support of his case on this issue was applicable only in the cases where bills are raised for the gross amount inclusive of profession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
