TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was framed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2007 and the total income was determined at Rs. 18,99,12,470/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 9.09.2008 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee and Revenue are now in appeal before us. The grounds raised by Assessee are as under:- 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous & requires to be quashed as void ab initio as the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed in the name of a company which is no longer in existence. It is submitted that it be so done now, 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of lease rent paid during the year amounting to Rs.7,68,99,864/-. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought not to have directed the AO to verify the bank details for allowing Rs.3,00,000/- being notional interest computed by AO, in respect of amount contributed to the Chief Minsiter's relief fund particularly when CIT(A) has already held that the said contribution was a business expenditure. It is submitted that it be so held now. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the interest component, he was of the view that it was not possible to work out the interest component. He accordingly disallowed the entire lease rent payment of Rs. 7,68,99,864/- claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) granted partial relief to the Assessee by holding as under: 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The issue has been decided against the appellant in its own case for A.Y.2004-05. The facts remaining identical and relying on my order for A.Y. 2004-05, the A.O. was justified treating the lease as finance lease. However, I am in agreement with the alternative plea that depreciation on the fixed assets be allowed to the appellant as also the interest component of the lease rent. In fact for assessment year 2004-05 such a direction was already given in the appellate order. The A.O. is again directed to allow the depreciation on the fixed assets and also the interest component on the lease rent after verification of the figures. Ground No.2 is partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the Assessee is now in appeal before us. Before us, the learned A.R. at the outset submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case while deciding this technical issue. We have noted that in the case of the lessor, i.e. GNFC Ltd. the issue has been consistently decided that the assets being under the ownership of GNFC Ltd., hence entitled for claim of depreciation and that the lease rent received from the assessee is required to be assessed as "business income". Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore hold that the lease rent paid is in the normal course of business of the assessee on the leased assets, hence required to be allowed as deduction. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are decided in assessee's favour. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the facts in the year under appeal are identical to that of A.Y. 2003-04. We therefore respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench for A.Y. 03-04 hold that the lease rent paid on lease assets is to be allowed as deduction. 8. In the result this ground of Assessee is allowed. 3rd and 4th ground not pressed and therefore not adjudicated and therefore dismissed. Ground no. 5 is with respect to disallowance under 40(a)(ia). 9. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that Assessee has i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S on CHA- charges paid of Rs.6,93,372/- and consignment expenses on Rs.76,00,509/-. The assessee paid CHA-charges and consignment agent of Rs. 6,93,372/- and Rs.76,00,509/- respecitvely. As per assessee, this includes freight expenses, loading and unloading charges, godown maintenance charges and other corporation expenses on behalf of the company which was reimbursed to them based on details of actual expenses incurred by such agents. Since, this pure reimbursement of expenses, no TDS is deductable. The appellant had taken confirmation from the .consignment agent that TDS was deducted from the payment made by them wherever it was applicable. Since transaction has already suffered tax once it cannot be tax again. The Id. A.O. observed that no details of TDS were submitted before him and as per Circular No. 715 dated 08.08.1995. TDS is to be deducted on such type of payments. Thus, he disallowed the expenses of Rs.76,00,509/- & Rs. 6,93,372/- u/s. (40)(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 35 The assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who had allowed the appeal on the basis of nature of payment reimbursed i.e. expenditure incurred on behalf of the appellant and there is no element of profit. ....