TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] held that when separate bills are there for reimbursement of expenditure received by C F agent, TDS was not required to be made on reimbursement. It is an admitted position in the case before us that assessee had in addition to reimbursement of expenses, separately paid brokerage and commission which was subjected to disallowance in the original assessment. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We do not find any reason for interference with the order of the CIT(A) . Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. - I.T.A. Nos. 224/Coch/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2017 - S/SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE AM AND GEORGE GEORGE K. JM For the Appellant : Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR For the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve deducted tax at source on the payments effected to M/s. Mark Logistics. Since assessee had not deducted such tax, Assessing Officer applied section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and made a disallowance of ₹ 60,80,063/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), assessee produced a statement from M/s. Mark Logistics According to this statement, the amounts given by the assessee to M/s. Mak Logistics were reimbursement of expenditure. In the said statement, M/s. Mark Logistics certified that expenditure was incurred on behalf of the assessee and not C F charges. They also stated that they had deducted tax at source while effecting payments to various persons with whom they had entrusted the work of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Association (236 ITR 993) and the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and another (201 ITR 435). 6. In reply, Ld. AR submitted that the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Deepak Bhargawa in I.T.A. No. 343/Del/2012 dated 13th November, 2014 had clearly held that section 194C would not be applicable for reimbursement of expenditure. As per the Ld. AR, facts of this case were very similar to that case. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Dhanyaa Seeds (P) Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 277) and that of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pri. CIT vs. Consumer Marketing (India) (P.) Ltd. (64 taxmann. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Other expenses 2,349,984 Total (Rs.) 6,080,063 Yours faithfully, (Authorized signatory (Name and designation For MARK LOGISTICS sd/- Shaji Kurian Manager Enclosure List of amounts reimbursed by you as stated above 7. M/s. Mark Logistics has also given details of bills, copies of which are placed in paperbook pgs. 23 to 32 and these also clearly show that they were claiming reimbursement of expenditure incurred by them on behalf of the assessee. In the case of Deepak Bhargava (supra), where also the question was disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
