TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of law: "[1] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,33,252/- made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)((iii) of the Act? [2] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,94,825/- made on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act ?" 2. The assessment year is 2008-09 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year 2007-08. The assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 80,79,294/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned senior standing counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) basically for the sake of consistency and that the Tribunal has not relied on its decision in the assessee's case, but has relied on the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in respect of which, further appeal was not filed in view of the low tax effect involved. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal being erroneous, the matter requires consideration. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reveals that he has noted that there was a direct nexus between the borr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n concurrent findings of fact recorded by it after appreciation of the evidence on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the same does not give rise to any question of law. 8. As regards proposed question No.2, the assessee debited Rs. 62,85,013/- as clearing and forwarding charges, but out of this amount, deducted TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) only on an amount of Rs. 7,45,801/-. It was the case of the assessee that the C & F agent incurs the expenses on behalf of the company and he is merely acting as a front man of the company; and that these expenses have no nexus with the commission he is supposed to get for his work. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made without deducting TDS is not allowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Referring to the assessment order, it was pointed out that the same clearly shows that there is no evidence that no TDS was made on reimbursement and the TDS was deducted on bills separately raised. It was, accordingly, urged that the matter requires consideration on the question a proposed or as may be deemed fit by this court. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reveals that he has taken note of the fact that the assessee did not deduct TDS on reimbursements made to C & F agent on separate bills of reimbursement on account of freight and other payments made on behalf of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance up....