9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we note that the issue raised in this appeal has to be decided in terms of the order dated 05.08.2024 of Special Bench in assessee's own case. 3. We note that brief facts of the case are that the assessee is providing international freight forwarding, and other related services to its customers. It involves assisting its customers (importers/exporters) to comply with the formalities in importing/exporting goods by air or ship, obtaining clearances from Port Trust, Airport authorities and the Customs; providing logistics support for movement of goods etc. In the course of rendering these services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case of CIT Vs. Cargo Linkers (supra) and further, he followed his predecessor's order for the assessment year 2013-14 and directed to delete the additions. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the ld. CIT(A), the Department preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and CO was preferred by the assessee supporting the action of the ld.CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing before the Division Bench of this Tribunal, the assessee moved a proposal for constitution of Special Bench, by contending that there were divergent views on the issue of deduction of TDS on payment made to CFS. It was the contention of the assessee that the views expressed by the Coordinate Bench at Chennai in favour of Department in the cases of Prahari Agency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of whether the payments being made as an intermediary on behalf of their principal, which, were subjected to section 194C of the Act and held the assessee conceded that it was acting as a principal and not as an intermediary. The relevant portion in para 9 are reproduced herein below for better understanding: 9. Having heard both the parties, we find that the foundational premise on which this Special Bench was constituted is now non-existent. This Special Bench was constituted to resolve the conflicting views of the coordinate Benches at Mumbai vis-à-vis the coordinate Benches at Chennai on the issue viz., whether the payments being made by an 'intermediary' on behalf of their principal were subject to Section 194C and conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for fresh adjudication in terms of the findings of the Special Bench treating the assessee as principal. He further reiterated that the assessee is ready to produce all evidences showing the payments made towards CFS are statutory in nature attracting no TDS. Therefore, taking into account the assessee's inability to produce all the required evidences and also AY being identified as old, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue by treating the assessee as principal taking into account all relevant evidences on record that may be produced by the assessee and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
