9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 08.06.2012, that said mistakes should be accordingly rectified. First mistake pointed out by the assessee pertains to Ground No.2 that dealt with claim for development expenses in respect of compact project for tractors. It was pointed out that following the order for A.Y. 2006-07 Ground No.2 was decided against the assessee, that in the A.Y. 2006-07 expenditure amounting to Rs. 69.37 lakhs was allowed as revenue expenditure out of the total expenditure of Rs. 1.89 crores, that direction should have been given for allowing revenue portion of expenditure for the A.Y. 2007-08. 2.1. We have perused the material before us. It is a fact that while passing order for the A.Y. 2006-07out of the total expenditure incurred by the assessee-company, under the head 'development expenses incurred for compact project for Tractors', a portion of the expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure by us. It is found that in the previous AY assessee-company has claimed that expenditure of Rs. 69.37 lakhs incurred by it was revenue in nature. As the details filed by the assessee proved that the claim made by it was factually correct, so, same was allowed. In the year under consideration assessee-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 40a(ia)in respect of the year end provisions amounting to Rs. 9.42 Crores. Same issue was decided in favour of the assessee. As the facts and circumstances remain the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee with reference to Ground No.12". 5. Next submission of the assessee-company is about Ground No.13 which deals with deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. It was pointed out by the AR while allowing the claim made by the assessee names of Nasik and Kandivili units were swapped. 5.1. It is found from the records that claim made by the assessee u/s. 35 (2AB) was allowed in the A.Y. 2006-07. While allowing the claim, it was held that assessee was entitled for claim with reference to Nashik R & D Units.AO was further directed that the claim for Kandivali Unit should be allowed as and when approval was received from DSIR. Following the orders of A.Y. 2006-07, we allow the claim made by the assessee for Nasik R&D Unit. AO is directed to allow claim in respect of Kandivali unit as and when approved by the DSIR. 6. Submissions with regard to Ground No.10 were not pressed by the AR during hearing proceedings before us. So, same stand dismissed. 6.1 The next error pointed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice coupons stated above it is clear that servicing is essentially a Post-sale activity though the commitment to provide reimbursement to the dealer for the cost of the free services is factored into the selling price; this cannot be viewed as an activity Carried out in the course of buying or selling of vehicles. Secondly and more importantly in this case the dealer does not render any service or carry out any work for the company. If at all, the dealer renders service to the Customer whose vehicle he services in exchange for free service coupons. The only contractual obligation that the company agrees to discharge is to reimburse the dealer a specified sum of money in exchange for service Coupons. Since the dealer neither provides any service to the company nor does he carry out any work for the company we submit that question of applying TDS on service coupons does not arise." After considering the reply of the assessee company, AO held as under: "The service coupon commission gets squarely covered by the provisions of " section 194C as the assessee has given a contract of doing free service of the vehicles to the final consumers on its behalf to the dealers. The money fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that TDS AO had passed an order under section 194C r.w.s.20(1) and 201(1)A of the Act. It was further mentioned that the CIT(A) had confirmed the order of the TDS AO. The assessee approached the Tribunal. The ITAT in its order dated 01.06.2010 remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). We find that the claim made by the assessee is factually correct- CIT(A) Nasik had vide its order dated 11.11.2011 had accepted the claim of the assessee-company. Partially modifying our orders we direct that operative part for the said issue (Para 6.1 of Pg. No. 22 of the order) should be read as under : "As the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee-company by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 11.11.2011.He has held, after obtaining a remand report from the AO, that no default was committed by the assessee-company with regard to Tax Deducted at Source. Considering the above fact we decide Ground no.16 in favour of the assessee." 8. In the Additional Grounds of Miscellaneous Application, assessee-company further submitted that Ground Nos. 21 & 22 were dismissed by the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
