TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessee's Appeal : ITA 796/Hyd/2011: 2. The only issue involved in the assessee's appeal is with regard to disallowance of expenditure in terms of S.40a(ia) of the Act, in view of nondeduction of Tax at Source under S.194J of the Act. 3. Assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs.10,92,886, as the assessee failed to comply with the requirements of S.194J of the Act, by applying the provisions of S.40a(ia) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed such disallowance made by the assessing officer. Hence, assessee is in second appeal before us. 4. We heard both the parties and have perused the record. In our opinion, the issue involved in this appeal of the assessee is covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal(V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting tax at source. We therefore, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to allow the impugned expenditure to the extent already paid during the relevant previous year and accordingly restrict the disallowance only to the amount remaining outstanding as at the end of the relevant previous year. 5. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Revenue's Appeal : ITA 819/Hyd/2011: 6. The first grievance of the Department in this appeal is with regard to granting of deduction under S.10A of the Income-tax Act by the CIT(A), in the absence of requisite proof and details furnished by the assessee. 7. The assessee company claimed deduction under S.10A of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,00,89,335.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d all the requisite details as required under S10A of the Act before the CIT(A). Being so, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in granting deduction under S.10A Act. The assessing officer cannot disturb the exemption under S.10A in the middle of the period, having granted the same in the earlier years, unless he has material to show that the assessee has violated any of the provisions of S.10A of the Act, during the year under appeal. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) is justified in granting deduction under S.10A. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds of the Revenue on this issue. 10. The next grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is with regard to disallowance of US bra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in foreign branch as incurred for business purposes. He accordingly treated the same as correctly expended for the purpose of the business. He accordingly directed the assessing officer to allow the same. 12. Against the relief granted by the assessing officer, Revenue is in appeal before us on this issue. 13. The Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed the action of the CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of JCIT V/s. Swarup Vegetable Products (98 TTJ 420), wherein, vide apra-13, it is held as follows- "13. In view of the position enunciated by the judgement of the Apex Court, Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various other High Courts in India, the legal p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 68 of the Act. For arriving at that view it was first necessary to come to the conclusion that there was indeed sale of plant and machinery to M/s A.S. Engineering Works as alleged by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not addressed himself to that issue at all. We, therefore, consider it necessary to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in the light of the observations made by us in this order. Let it be clearly understood that for this purpose the CIT(A) would consider on merits as to which one of the two additions i.e., Rs. 20 lakhs or Rs. 11,00,562A should be retained. He should arrive at specific findings of fact as to whether or not the assessee sold plant and machinery to M/s A.S. Engineering Works, Kh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to offer, by furnishing the remand report as called for, proceeded to dispose off the appeal before him on merits. In the circumstances, we find effective opportunity of hearing has been granted by the CIT(A) to the assessing officer, since effective opportunity does not mean giving indefinite period of time. Before us, the Revenue has not placed any material to suggest that the CIT(A) has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessing officer. In the circumstances, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A). In view of this, the inference drawn by the CIT(A) that the expenses incurred by the assessee in foreign branch is for the purposes of business only and has to be treated as expended for the purposes of business.....