2014 (3) TMI 723

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the sake of convenience. 2. The common effective ground raised by the Revenue is as under: (2) The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made for non deduction of tax on the payment made to HPCL & GAIL. 2.1 There was a delay of two days in filing these two appeals. The DR submitted that due to administrative reasons, there was a short delay of two days in filing these two appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. We have heard both the parties on this issue. We are convinced about the reasons advanced by the DR. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Since the facts are identical in both the appeals, for the sake of brevity we consider the facts as narrated in the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vision of section 40(a)(ia). During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to state whether such payments made to HPCL & GAIL were subjected to TDS and the assessee replied in the negative. The assessee was asked to confirm the amount of reimbursement towards supply of manpower and the assessee has submitted the correct figure of Rs. 1,03,85,571 / -. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of expenditure of Rs. 1,03,85,571/- and added to the returned income by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) observed that the issue in dispute was subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal for A.Ys. 2007- 08 and 2008-09 in IT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assessee reimbursed the amount paid by GAIL and HPCL. 11. GAIL and HPCL deputed their personnel who worked under the control and management of JVC. The employees were carrying out the work of the Assessee as its employees not carrying out the work on behalf of GAIL or HPCL. Salary, cost of these employees are a charge on the profits of the Assessee. Payment by way of salary would not constitute Fees for technical services. Nor can the transaction be viewed as a works contract performed by GAIL and HPCL. Merely because the companies had in an agreement agreed to depute their employees would not mean that it is a works contract. Further the Assessee paid only the salaries of the persons who worked under the control and supervision of the A....