9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ii. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the payment of amount credited separately which is not part of sale bill as commission. iii. That the appellant may be allowed adding, amend or alter the grounds of appeal, if any." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm was engaged in the business of distributor of readymade garments. The assessee-firm filed its return of income on 28.08.2018 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee and which were duly complied by the assessee. During the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer observed that assessee firm received a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR further contended that the reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of the issue involved was not found to be convincing. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and further he submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has viewed that the discount given to the various parties by the assessee in the nature of turnover discount did not attract TDS u/s 194H of the Act. He further contended that assessee in the instant case did not have any right or control over the goods sold to the retailers and the goods hold by the retailers on their own behalf and not on behalf of the appellant. In such circumstances, the parties to whom incentive were made by the assessee did not act as an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant just in order to avail the credit of TDS declared the credit notes as income. In the instant case goods were invoiced by the appellant to the retailers leading to transfer of ownership in goods (with complete risk and rewards). The appellant, thereafter, did not have any right or control over the goods sold to the retailers. The retailers held the good on their own behalf and not on behalf of the appellant. Thus, they did not act as agents of the appellant. This is the acid test for deciding the nature of relationship. In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, A.O. was not justified in making the disallowance on account of target incentive u/s 40(a) (ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, this ground is allowed." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
