Tribunal: TDS required for payments to CFS agents under Section 194C, disallowance limited to 30%

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to CFS agents under Section 194C. It ruled that the payments were subject to TDS, rejecting the argument that they were reimbursements. The Tribunal also directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the expenses in line with the retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ia), resulting in partial allowance of the appeals for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement of Transport charges and CFS charges.
2. Applicability of Section 194C for payments made towards CFS charges.
3. Whether the disallowance should be limited to 30% of the expenses as per the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement of Transport charges and CFS charges:

The assessee firm, a Custom House Agent, filed returns for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. During assessment proceedings, the AO noticed non-deduction of TDS on CFS charges paid at Chennai Port, despite deduction at Tuticorin Port. The AO disallowed Rs. 24,01,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C. The assessee argued that these payments were reimbursements and thus outside the scope of Section 194C. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument, stating that as per Section 194C, the person making the payment is required to deduct TDS, irrespective of whether the payment is made on behalf of a third party.

2. Applicability of Section 194C for payments made towards CFS charges:

The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Chennai decision in M/s. Prahari Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, which held that payments made by a Custom House Agent to CFS agents fall under Section 194C. The Tribunal reiterated that the person making the payment, even if on behalf of clients, is responsible for TDS deduction. Payments made by the assessee to CFS agents were not considered reimbursements but direct payments between principal parties. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision that the payments were subject to TDS under Section 194C.

3. Whether the disallowance should be limited to 30% of the expenses as per the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia):

The assessee argued that only 30% of the expenses should be disallowed based on the retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. The Tribunal agreed that the amendment is curative and applies retrospectively from AY 2005-06. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the expenses incurred without TDS.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the payments made to CFS agents were subject to TDS under Section 194C, and upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. However, it directed the AO to limit the disallowance to 30% of the expenses, following the retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). The appeals for both assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were partly allowed.

---