TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if, as apparent, it has not been considered as payment to self. The order should explicitly state as to why the claim does not qualify for deduction, stating its reason/s, even if, as it appears, it is for the reason of non-deduction of tax at source, which is admitted. To this extent, we find the assessee's claim for non-adjudication as valid. The impugned order is, accordingly, recalled for adjudicating the assessee's Ground in-so-far as it relates to the assessee's claim toward commission paid/allowed to correspondents. We may, it may be emphasized, not be construed as having issued any opinion in the matter; the hearing before us being limited to the 'mistake' attending the impugned order. Before parting, we may add that there has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted, stands decided by the tribunal per para 15 thereof, allowing the assessee's claim in respect of interest expenditure only, ignoring the claim qua commission expenditure, also raised along with in-as-much as the same stood included in the impugned sum of ₹ 33,55,026/-, the break-up of which is as under: (in INR) Interest paid to HO 19,61,557 Interest paid to branches 420 Commission paid to branches 1,89,562 Commission paid to correspondents 12,03,487 Total 33,55,026 The tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 33.55 lacs u/s. 40(a)(ia), omitted to consider the claim for commission, also included therein. In this regard, without doubt, the impugned sum includes both the claim for interest and commission, while para 15 refers only to interest. The claim for interest works only to ₹ 19,61,977/-, and not ₹ 21,51,539/- allowed by the tribunal; which sum is inclusive of ₹ 1,89,562/-, being the commission allowed to branches (refer para 2 of this order). Clearly, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the tribunal has not considered, or has omitted to consider, when it considers the assessee's claim for interest paid/allowed to HO/overseas branches, that paid/allowed, similarly, i.e., to HO/overseas branches, on account of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order clearly shows that it has accepted the assessee's impugned claim, consistent with its decision in relation to Grounds 5 and 6 (reproduced above), to the extent it relates to commission allowed to HO/branches. In so doing, it follows the co-ordinate bench (in ITA No. 6615/Mum/2003) in the assessee's own case as well as in Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. vs. Dy. DIT(IT) [2012] 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB). Reference in this context may also be made to para 25 of the tribunal's order, quoting the relevant observations by the larger bench, wherein, again, there is no reference to the correspondents but only to HO/overseas branches. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said orders also consider the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as payment to self. The order should explicitly state as to why the claim does not qualify for deduction, stating its reason/s, even if, as it appears, it is for the reason of non-deduction of tax at source, which is admitted. To this extent, we find the assessee's claim for non-adjudication as valid. The impugned order is, accordingly, recalled for adjudicating the assessee's Ground No. 7 in-so-far as it relates to the assessee's claim toward commission paid/allowed to correspondents, i.e., for ₹ 12,03,487/-. We may, it may be emphasized, not be construed as having issued any opinion in the matter; the hearing before us being limited to the 'mistake' attending the impugned order. Before parting, we may add that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
