TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned Departmental Representative. 3. In regard to Ground No.1, the facts are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had offered a sum ₹ 34,23,536/- consisting of ₹ 30,18,355/- as 'Technical service Charges and ₹ 4,05,181/- as 'Network Changes'. It was further noticed that assessee had also received the following amounts from HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Limited (in short 'HDFC Chubb'): Sl. No. Amount (Rs.) Nature of receipts Reasons 1. 7,470,149 Procurement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ftware licenses to Apex Systems Pte. Ltd. A copy of the letter issued by Apex Systems Pte. Ltd., dated 3.4.2002 to show that the invoice was raised in the name of HDFC Chubb was also filed. Copy of the assessee's bank account to show that assessee had made the payment of Singapore $ 291,765 to Apex Systems Pte Ltd., and this was confirmed by Apex Systems Pte. Ltd stating that they had received Singapore $ 291,765 from the assessee on behalf of HDFC Chubb. It was also submitted that TDS was duly deducted by HDFC Chubb from Apex Systems Pte. Ltd., and therefore Apex Systems Pte. Ltd., has already been taxed to the extent of TDS and the same payment could not be taxed once again. The learned CIT(A) found force in the submission of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (IRDA) is received. Since the IRDA approval was in process and capital infusion had not been done, the HDFC Chubb requested appellant to make payment on behalf of the HDFC Chubb. License from IRDA was granted to HDFC on 27.9.2002, subsequently, HDFC Chubb paid back the amount to the appellant. Therefore, as per the request of HDFC Chubb the appellant paid amount to Apex on 15.4.2002. this amount was paid by HDFC chubb to the appellant. However, for the purpose of disclosure of income and the deduction of tax, the payment was made by HDFC Chubb to Apex in December, 2002 and May 2002 as per the TDS Certificates dt. 31.3.2003. evidencing the deduction of tax at source @ 15% HDFC Chubb had reimbursed the appellant for the payment made by appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, in our view, the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition because it is a case of payment made on behalf of HDFC Chubb by the assessee, which cannot be termed as income of the assessee company. In these circumstance, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). 9. In respect of ground No. 2, we have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the relevant records. We find that levy under section 234B has been correctly deleted by the Learned CIT(A) because interest u/s. 234B is not chargeable to the extent of tax deductible in case of non-resident Indians as per the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. vs. DCIT (95 ITD 269). Following the decision, we confirm the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
