TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was neither due nor received by the assessee, the question of adding the same as suppressed receipts did not arise and, therefore, the same was deleted. As the amount of ₹ 48,77,440/- did not form part of the receipts of the assessee, credit for corresponding TDS of ₹ 1,10,767/- could not be given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer was directed not to give credit for this TDS amount. The addition of ₹ 13,09,267/- on account of receipt of discount was deleted by holding it to be on account of reimbursement of amount paid to Assistant Distributors. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 72,52,052/- was deleted. With regard to the charging of interest under Section 234B of the Act, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of TDS under Section 194C/194H is a contract receipt/commission income in the hands of assessee which the assessee subsequently cannot justify as reimbursement of expenses to the sub dealers/retailers? ( ii) Whether as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the payments were made or were due to the assessee, especially since the reimbursement to the sub-dealers made by the assessee is not envisaged explicitly in caluse-17 and therefore, the decision of ITAT is bad inlaw? ( iii) Whether the receipt of ₹ 72,52,052/- in the hand of the assessee is admittedly a contractual receipt on which TDS under Section 194C/194H has been deducted from it and the assessee has violated the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 52,052/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 24.07.2012, Annexure A.II, the CIT(A) deleted the whole addition of ₹ 72,52,052/- with the observation that receipt of ₹ 10,65,345/- from Vodafone was on account of reimbursement of salary, which had been clarified by the assessee in re-casted profit and loss account. It was further recorded that receipt of discount of ₹ 13,09,267/- from Vodafone was on account of reimbursement of amount paid to Assistant Distributors. Apart from this, the assessee had incurred ₹ 62,000/- on account of short claims etc which had been booked under the head discount and, therefore, only ₹ 62, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A) that there was no justification for adding the said amount as suppressed receipts and, therefore, deleted the same. It was further recorded that the incentive of ₹ 48,77,440/- by M/s Vodafone had been made directly to the retailers. Since the said amount was neither due nor received by the assessee, the question of adding the same as suppressed receipts did not arise and, therefore, the same was deleted. As the amount of ₹ 48,77,440/- did not form part of the receipts of the assessee, credit for corresponding TDS of ₹ 1,10,767/- could not be given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer was directed not to give credit for this TDS amount. The addition of ₹ 13,09,267/- on account of receipt of discount was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
