Tribunal Upholds Assessee's Cross-Objection, Allows Depreciation, Remands Commission Disallowance

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to depreciation and grossed-up expenses, while remanding the issue of commission disallowance for reconsideration with additional evidence. The Tribunal's decisions were consistent with its earlier rulings and relevant judicial precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on Foster's Brand under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of grossed-up expenses related to taxes withheld under section 195A.
3. Disallowance of commission to agents under section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of tax under section 194H.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Foster's Brand:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 16,17,97,500 on account of depreciation claimed on Foster's Brand, arguing that the assessee failed to deduct TDS under section 195. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the depreciation under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition, citing that the Bombay High Court had ruled that the income from the transfer of trademarks was not taxable in India, thus negating the need for TDS. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that depreciation is a statutory deduction on an asset and not subject to TDS. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decisions in the assessee's favor, confirming that section 40(a)(i) does not apply to depreciation claims.

2. Disallowance of Grossed-up Expenses Related to Taxes Withheld:
The AO disallowed Rs. 4,97,36,399 being the tax deducted on payments made on a grossed-up basis. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, explaining that under section 195A, tax payable is part of the total consideration and thus deductible. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the tax liability borne by the assessee forms part of the cost of availing services and should be allowed as an expenditure. The Tribunal referenced its previous rulings and the decision in CIT v/s BOB Cards Ltd., supporting the allowance of such expenses.

3. Disallowance of Commission to Agents:
The AO disallowed Rs. 4,36,32,364 as commission to agents under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax under section 194H. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, not considering additional evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence, which demonstrated that the payments were reimbursements and not commissions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a fresh examination of the evidence, citing the decisions in Director of Income Tax (IT) v/s A.P. Moller Maersk AS and Krupp Udhe GmbH. The Tribunal emphasized that reimbursements do not constitute income and are not subject to TDS.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to depreciation and grossed-up expenses, while remanding the issue of commission disallowance for reconsideration with additional evidence. The Tribunal's decisions were consistent with its earlier rulings and relevant judicial precedents.

---