2020 (8) TMI 89 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal disallows payment to ex-employee for tax deduction & gifts, expenses not deemed business-related

Bayer Crop-Science Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT-10 (3), Mumbai

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances of payment to the ex-employee for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) and expenses on gifts and rewards ... Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - disallowances of amount paid ex-employee for non deduction of tax at source u/s 194C - as per revenue payment made to Mr. Mohla, is in the nature of commission, and the assessee is required to deduct tax at source - HELD THAT:- Since, the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source on said payment, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no error in disallowances of said amount u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Tribunal has considered various case laws cited by the assesee, including the decision of CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd [2011 (10) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while adjudicating the issue and find that the facts of those cases are not applicable to facts of present case and hence, are not specifically discussed If the bench was taken a view that the case laws cited by the parties are not relevent to the issue, then those case laws which are not relevent cannot be considered at all. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to make out a case of prima-facie mistake apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal, which can be rectified u/s 254(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Disallowances of gifts and other expenses given to employees, dealers, customers and other business associates - Tribunal has recorded its categorical finding and discussed the issue in light of various averments made by the assesee and has also considered various case laws cited on this issue. Tribunal has recorded its categorical finding that expenditure incurred under the head gifts and other expenses given to employees etc, are in the nature of personal expenses and are not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. Further, if you go through the fact finding recorded by the Tribunal in light of averments made by the assesee in the miscellaneous application, we find that what is sought through the miscellaneous application is to review the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of the case, which in our considered view is not permissible u/s 254(2) - miscellaneous application filed by the assessee on both grounds does not have merits - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of payment to ex-employee for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of expenses on gifts and rewards under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Payment to Ex-Employee for Non-Deduction of TDSThe assessee filed a miscellaneous application against the Tribunal's order disallowing the payment made to an ex-employee for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the payment was in the nature of compensation, not commission, and cited relevant case laws to support its plea. However, the Tribunal found that the payment was indeed in the nature of commission, and since TDS was not deducted as required under section 194H, the disallowance was justified. The Tribunal considered the arguments and case laws presented by the assessee but concluded that they were not applicable to the facts of the case, hence dismissing the miscellaneous application.Issue 2: Disallowance of Expenses on Gifts and RewardsRegarding the disallowance of expenses on gifts and rewards given to employees, dealers, customers, and other business associates under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments. The Tribunal held that such expenses were personal in nature and not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee relied on various decisions, including the case of Hansraj Mathurdas vs ITO, to support its claim that the expenses were business-related due to the payment of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT). However, the Tribunal found that the expenses did not meet the criteria for business deductions and dismissed the miscellaneous application, stating that the arguments presented did not warrant a review of the decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, upholding the disallowances of both the payment to the ex-employee and the expenses on gifts and rewards. The Tribunal found no prima facie mistake apparent on the record that would warrant rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was pronounced in open court on 28.07.2020.