Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2016 (1) TMI 679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee was not liable to deduct tax u/s 194I of the Act and deleting the dock fees and airport terminal charges determined u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and further deleting the interest levied u/s 201(1A) by holding that the payment of cargo handling charges does not fall within the ambit of section 194J of the Act. 2. In ITA No.4950/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year 2009-10), the ground raised pertains to holding that no disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D (2)(ii) is called for overlooking that the Assessing Officer correctly made the disallowance as the assessee could not establish the nexus between its own funds and investment made in tax free income and further deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ignoring the fact that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which cannot be recovered again from the assessee, thereby no default has been committed, as has been alleged by the ld. Assessing Officer. We note that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) duly considered the submissions of the assessee, various case laws as mentioned in various paras of the impugned orders and the charges separately. The submissions of the assessee has been reproduced in the impugned order as is evident from para 3.8 onwards. We have gone through the facts and the case laws such as Hah Logistics vs DCIT (ITA No.1864/Del./2011) order dated M/s Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. 04/11/2011 and DCIT vs Jay Kay Freighters Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.3407/Del./2011) order dated 08/08/2012, with respect to section 194C, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pursuant to any agreement or arrangement. M/s Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. Admittedly, such CCSPs are providing various ranges of services, enabling the importer/exporter, to comply with custom regulations till clearance is obtained, thus, charges paid to CCSPs are not in the nature of rent simplicitor but they were in the nature of statutory charges or levies, paid for complying with the notified procedure. The assessee is merely working as intermediatery and their functions are governed/regulated by the custom house agents licensing regulations 2004. Regulation 13 exhaustively list out the obligations and responsibilities of custom house agents. As per the custom regulations, the obligation to make the payments of such char....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exus between own funds and investment made to earn tax free income. The assessee defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The stand of the Assessing Officer is that since the total reserves exceeds the investment in securities, income from which is exempt, therefore, it can be presumed that investment were out of borrowed funds. However, the investments were made by the assessee over the years and the total reserves in the respective years were more than the total investments during the year. Thus, in view of the decision in Reliance Utilities in 313 ITR 340 (Mum.), we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. It is also note....