TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the 'Act'). Facts being similar, we begin with the AY 2005-06. ITA No. 5678/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 2. In AY 2005-06, the AO noticed that payment of Rs. 20,46,640/- was made to the following parties: i. Shreeji International Rs.1,95,561/- ii. Greenwich Rs.4,59,153/- iii. P.D. Prasad Rs.34,068/- iv. Mahavir Agency Rs.4,03,373/- v. AMI India Logistics Rs.5,82,564/- vi. Others Rs.3,99,926/- Total 20,46,640/- 2.1 The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 15,10,924/- out of the above sum u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. The 1st ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleted. Reliance is placed by him on the order of the ITAT 'C' Bench Mumbai in the case of ACIT v. M/s P.P. Overseas for AY 2006-07 (ITA No. 733/Mum/2010). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In M/s P.P. Overseas (supra) the Tribunal has held: "The contract between the assessee and the C&F agent is a service contract which has not been specifically included in Explanation III below section 194C. In this view of the matter, the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to the payments to the C&F agents. If that is so, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax from the payment made to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terminal handling charges of Rs. 4,03,893/- paid to Greenwich Meredian Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. 13. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that as per the amended provisions of section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 01.04.2013 if the payee has paid taxes on such receipts then for the purpose of allowing deduction of such sum, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax. The Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee and held that since the amendment is operative only w.e.f. AY 2013-14, the assessee's contention is not applicable. On that reason, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 14. Before us, Ld. counsel reiterated the submission made by him before the Ld. CIT(A). On t....