TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 194H and upheld ld. CIT(A) u/s194J. Since there is no rendering of any services and the payment is not made for any managerial services to RCDF, therefore, payment can neither be held as liable for TDS u/s 194H of the Act as commission/brokerage as held by the AO nor u/s 194J for rendering any managerial services as held by the ld. CIT(A). In view thereof, we hold that assessee's impugned payment to RCDF are not liable for TDS. It is true that the counsel for the appellant contended that the the payment which has been made till 16.12.2013 (Annexure-4) on completion of financial year will be applied or not. Therefore, we are not confirming the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal but confirming only the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omotion/advertisement made to RCDF and others is not liable for TDS? 3. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the reasoning given by the CIT (Appeals) and contended that the issue which reads as under: In lieu of the Services Charges the RCDF would be providing the following services to the Unions: (i) marketing Support as per requirement. (ii) Coordination with the state/central government and financial institutions for various schemes. (iii) Finalising rate contracts for purchase of raw material for cattlefeed plants, packing material for milk and milk products and cattlefeed etc. (iv) Assist in plant management, engineering and quality assurance projects. (v) Preparation and monitoring of Integrated Business Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fessional or technical services on which provisions of section 194J is applicable. Since the appellant has not deducted the tax at source from such payment, the expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, I agree with the contention of the ld. AR that provisions of sectioin 40(a)(ia) are not applicable on the payments made before the end of the previous year, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of JVVNL (supra). A.O. is directed to verify the actual payments made by the appellant to RCDF during the year and allow the expenditure to that extent. 4. The Tribunal reads order dated 21.07.2015, in para 3.13, has observed as under: I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
