9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h's decision in the case of M/s. Merylin Shipping P. Ltd., when the said decision was suspended by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P." 2. In order to appreciate the issue under consideration it may be necessary to briefly record the facts of the case. The assessee-company is incorporated for the purpose of carrying on the business as Registrars and Share Transfer Agents. For the year under consideration the assessee-company declared total income of Rs. 23.88 crores. The case was taken-up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 1,34,20,078 under the head "Settlement and Custody Fees". When the assessee was asked as to whether TDS was made on the said fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for that purpose the website of NSDL is accessed and assessee-company pays an upfront fee which is calculated on a flat rate depending on number of records requested. Upon receipt of the fees NSDL permits access to the assessee for downloading the relevant information. Thus the payment made by the assessee is not towards professional services rendered by NSDL. In fact information is furnished by the NSDL on a cash and carry basis. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib.) 1 to submit that where there is no outstanding towards payment of "BENPOS" charges there cannot be any disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. An additional ground w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40(a)(ia) do apply to the facts of the case as well. Thus on both the counts the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer was set aside by the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, strongly relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In the light of decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2008-2009, we are of the view that the payment made by the assessee cannot be treated as a payment towards technical services and, at any rate, the companies having treated this amount as income and offered to tax the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) do not apply to the facts of the case. Under these circumstances, we uphold the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
