9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 26th August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 200910. 2. Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for the Revenue urges the following reframed questions of law for our consideration : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparate bills being raised by the agent, one for reimbursement and other for services rendered. This was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and he disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 63.48 lakhs and added it to the respondent assessee's income. 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A), on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the person rendering services and part thereof could be attributable to the reimbursement of expenses. Thus, the CIT(A) allowed the respondent assessee's appeal by order dated 10th April, 2012 to the extent of Rs. 61.72 lakhs being reimbursement of freight expenses. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order placed relianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payments made to the agent for the freight paid by it on the respondent assessee's behalf was in fact, reimbursement of expenses. This is so evidenced by Airlines bills which show the respondent assessee as the person responsible to make the payment. This finding of fact by two Authorities is not shown to be perverse. 7. In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
