Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 372 - ITAT JAIPUR

2016 (6) TMI 372 - ITAT JAIPUR - TMI - TDS u/s 194C - payment of AMC charges - Held that:- It is undisputed fact that the assessee had paid the whole amount of ₹ 75,000/- during the year under consideration but as claimed by the AR that it is below the prescribed limit but the year under consideration, the limit was ₹ 50,000/- U/s 194C of the Act. The case law cited by the assessee is squarely applicable, therefore, additions confirmed by the ld CIT(A) under both the heads is deleted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

739 dated 25/3/1996, both the authorities had not allowed the remuneration computed on the basis of Section 40(b)(v) of the Act but it is fact that the assessee had quantified remuneration on the basis of partnership when CIT have coterminous power with A.O. and the assessee has submitted modified partnership before him and Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court decision on this issue in the case of Durga Dass Devki Nandan Vs. ITO (2011 (3) TMI 20 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT) was relied upon by 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

ictional High Court on this issue, we have considered view that the assessee is rightly entitled for deduction of remuneration paid to the partners. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) on this ground - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 406/JP/2013 - Dated:- 31-5-2016 - Shri T. R. Meena, AM And Shri Laliet Kumar, JM For the Assessee : Shri B.V. Maheshwari (CA) For the Revenue : Mrs. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) ORDER Per T. R. Meena, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

79,000/- by taking recourse of Sec. 40(a)(ia). This is also covered by the decision of Merillin Shipping 70 DTR 81. 3. That the ld A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the electricity expenses ₹ 5566/-. 4. That the ld A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not allowing the remuneration paid to partners U/s 40(b) ₹ 26,40,000/-. The remuneration have been paid. 2. The assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2009 declaring total income of 60,80,880/-. The a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pair and maintenance expenses and debited a sum of ₹ 1,27,641/- under the head printing and stationary expenses. The ld Assessing Officer gave reasonable opportunity of being heard, which was availed by the assessee vide letter dated 11/11/2011. After considering the assessee s reply, the ld Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to furnish necessary details regarding AMC charges of ₹ 70,000/- and no TDS had been deducted on it, therefore, he disallowed this amount and a .....

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 assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee had paid AMC charges during the year under consideration as per agreement and payment is below specified limit prescribed U/s 194C of the Act. He further argued that the ld CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact of decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping (2012) 70 DTR 81. Later on the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. 357 ITR 642 has applied the Spec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid the whole amount of ₹ 75,000/- during the year under consideration but as claimed by the AR that it is below the prescribed limit but the year under consideration, the limit was ₹ 50,000/- U/s 194C of the Act. The case law cited by the assessee is squarely applicable, therefore, additions confirmed by the ld CIT(A) under both the heads is deleted. 6. Ground No. 3 of the assessee s appeal is against confirming the disallowance of electricity expenses at ₹ 5,556/- by the ld A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r consulting services after office hours or in case of emergency, therefore, it was incurred for the business purposes, which is allowable deduction. At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). After considering both the sides, no new facts have been come before us. The assessee has not been able to establish that these expenses were incurred wholly or exclusively for the business purposes, therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) on this ground. 7. Groun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shed copy of partnership deed alongwith Annexure-8 and claimed that partnership deed is allowed remuneration to the partner U/s 40(b) of the Act. After considering the assessee s reply and clause-12, 13 and 14 of the partnership deed executed on 22/11/2006, he held that remuneration had not been quantified in the copy of partnership deed. He further referred CBDT circular No. 739 dated 25/3/1996, since the assessment year made under consideration is 2009-10, which is subsequent to A.Y. 1996-97, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessing Officer, there was no provision for payment of remuneration. The ld Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the same. 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before us and also filed modified grounds of appeal on this issue vide letter dated 14/4/2016, which is as under:- That the ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not admitting the additional evidence. (The additional evidence was filed to clarify the clause of remuneration given in the partnership deed) and thereby erred in not allowing the remuner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the deed and assessee claimed this deduction on the basis of various decisions on this issue. He relied on the decision of Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Durga Dass Devki Nandan Vs. ITO (2011) 241 CTR 180 (HP) wherein it has been held that CBDT cannot issue a circular which goes against the provisions of I.T. Act. The CBDT can only clarify the issue but cannot execute the terms and conditions, which are not part of the main statute. A reading of Section 40(b)(v) clearly sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ause 12 and 13 of the partnership deed, the remuneration payable for individual working shall be not exceeding maximum limit laid down in Section 40(b)(v) of the Act, therefore, he prayed to allow the appeal. 10. At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee has provided in partnership deed for remuneration as under:- 12 The remuneration payab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

them from time to time. Such remuneration shall be calculated at the close of the accounting year and partners shall be entitled to draw out the remuneration for their personal needs from time to time. Thereafter the assessee filed revised partnership deed before the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A) and clause -12 has been modified as under:- The above said clause is un-completed to over sight, hence it is to be read as under: Clause No. 12: The partners shall be paid remuneration to the extent 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

ontained U/s 40(b)(v) of the I.T. Act. As such this clarification amendment is made in the partnership deed on this 31st day of March, 2007 at Kota. The assessee had debited remuneration on the basis of Section 40(b)(v) of the Act, which was ratified by the amended partnership deed, the same has been furnished before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) during the course of hearing but both the authorities have relied CBDT circular No. 739 dated 25/3/1996 and had not accepted the assessee s c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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