TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re on which no tax is required to be deducted at source - HELD THAT:- Despite assessee producing the evidence before the learned CIT (A), he rejected the arguments of the assessee without examining the same. As assessee has produced necessary evidence before him, the addition is confirmed only for the reason that same were not produced before the learned Assessing Officer. We find no justification has been given in rejecting the claim of the assessee. In view of this with respect to the disallowance of ₹17 lacs, we set aside the grounds of the assessee to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to examine whether assessee has already deducted tax at source on payment of ₹9,25,546/- and further, the expenditure of ₹8,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithheld on an amount of Rs. 925,546 and hence, cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Erred in not admitting additional evidences in the nature of withholding tax-certificates issued by the Appellant for an amount of Rs 925,546, basis of allocation demonstrating the fact that the payments were in the nature of reimbursement and sample invoices of third party in relation to the same. 4. In dismissing the Appellant's petition for non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate, and may kindly be considered independent of each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or all of the above ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany and same is reimbursed by the assessee. The assessee also stated that as it is merely reimbursement of expenses and therefore, no tax deduction at source was required to be made. It further explained that the reimbursement was made as per cost allocation and recharge agreement entered into by assessee with M/s Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited (in short GSISPL). As per agreement that company shall recharge all direct cost incurred on behalf of group companies. Therefore, assessee reimbursed the expenditure incurred and allocated to the assessee. Assessee also submitted that co-ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2011-12 has held that assessee is not required to withhold tax on payments made to group entities towar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... munication and administrative expenses. As there is no element of income in the reimbursement of expenses, taxes were not required to be withheld. Assessee submitted various copies of invoices. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee holding that assessee has failed to prove that these are actual reimbursement. The learned Assessing Officer further found that assessee has paid ₹3,23,00,000-/ as recharge without tax deducted at source to nonresident related parties on which the disallowance is 100% of such expenses. He also found that assessee has paid ₹2,74,17,650/- as recharge without TDS to resident related parties and disallowance for non-deduction would be to the extent of 30% amounting to ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it has already deducted tax in respect of payment of ₹9,25,546/- but same could not be brought to the notice of the learned Assessing Officer. 09. Further, with respect to ₹8,71,077/-, it was submitted these payments are also in the nature of reimbursement of expenses such as relocation expenses. He held that as the assessee has come up with new plea and evidences with regard to the payment of ₹17,00,000/- without giving any reason, why such evidences were not submitted before the learned Assessing Officer, he confirmed the disallowance. In view of this, assessee is aggrieved with the disallowance of ₹17 lacs confirmed by the learned CIT (A) and learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved by the deletion of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) held that tax is required to be deducted on reimbursement of such stock price to the GSGI as it is mere reimbursement of expenditure. No infirmities were pointed out in the order of the learned CIT (A). It was also not shown that any profit element is contained in the above remittances made by the assessee. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in holding that payment of ₹3.06 crores made by the assessee to GSGI is merely reimbursement of expenditure and no tax is required to be withheld thereon. Accordingly the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer containing this solitary ground is dismissed. 012. Coming to the appeal of the assessee, both the parties heard. 013. We find that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
