2014 (6) TMI 573 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal decision on management fees, expenses upheld. Appeal partially allowed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SERGI TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION PREVENTION PVT LTD

The Tribunal set aside the order regarding the deletion of management fees without tax deduction, directing a fresh decision by the AO. It upheld the ... Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act - Payment of management fee – TDS not deducted – Held that:- The net amount is required to be grossed up for the purpose of deduction of tax at source- the assessee made deduction of tax at source @ 10% of the net amount paid - it appears that the assessee did not furnish any details about deduction of tax at source from this management fee and its resultant payment –thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. Expenses incurred as Fees and subscription – Held that:- The AO proceeded to make disallowance by observing that the assessee purchased some software against which the subscription/fee was paid - without examining the actual detail of such expenses, the AO went on to make addition - the details of expenses which do not relate to software purchase as was made out by the AO, were sent to him for remand report - he considered it expedient not to offer any comment. There was no reason to deviate from the finding recorded by the CIT(A) that such expenses were not for software purchase but revenue in the nature towards fees and subscription – Decided against Revenue. Addition of communication and travelling expenses – Held that:- The AO was not justified in disallowing the entire expenditure of ₹ 1.25 crore merely on the ground that this expenditure was excessive in comparison with the preceding year - the assessee did not file any details of such expenses, but the assessee did furnish the necessary details of such expenses on various dates – thus, the order of the CIT(A) does not require any interference – Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Deletion of addition of management fees without deduction of tax at source.2. Deletion of addition of expenses under the head 'Fees and subscription.'3. Deletion of addition of communication and traveling expenses.Issue 1: Deletion of addition of management fees without deduction of tax at source:The appeal revolved around the deletion of an addition by the AO on account of payment of management fees without deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance after observing that the assessee deducted tax at source @ 10% on the management fee. However, upon further examination, it was found that there was no deduction of tax at source from the management fee. The Tribunal noted that Section 195A requires grossing up of the net amount for deduction of tax at source when income is payable net of tax. As the assessee did not furnish details about tax deduction, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the AO to decide the issue afresh after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.Issue 2: Deletion of addition of expenses under the head 'Fees and subscription':The second ground of the appeal concerned the deletion of an addition made by the AO on expenses incurred under 'Fees and subscription.' The AO disallowed a significant amount, considering it as capital expenditure related to software purchase. However, the CIT(A) found that the expenses were not for software purchase but for various other purposes like registration fees, training, subscription fees, etc. Despite the evidence provided by the assessee, the AO did not offer any comment on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the expenses were revenue in nature and not related to software purchase.Issue 3: Deletion of addition of communication and traveling expenses:The final ground of the appeal focused on the deletion of an addition made by the AO on account of excessive communication and traveling expenses claimed by the assessee. The AO disallowed the entire amount based on the increase from the preceding year. However, the CIT(A) overturned this decision after considering the details furnished by the assessee and the remand report. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the AO's disallowance was unjustified as the necessary details of the expenses were indeed provided by the assessee. Thus, the deletion of the addition was upheld.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper tax deduction at source, accurate categorization of expenses, and the necessity for detailed examination before making additions or disallowances.