TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2014. When the Revenue has filed appeals for assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08, the assessee has filed appeal for assessment year 2007- 08. We heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. The first issue arises for consideration is in the Revenue's appeal is addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- with regard to excess collection of sales tax. 3. Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee was expected to collect sales tax at the rate of 2%. However, the assessee collected 4% and surcharge at 5% thereon. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that the excess collection has to be treated as trading receipt, hence, the Assessing Officer mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is with regard to additional sales tax collected by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 28,37,259/-. 7. Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee collected Rs. 28,37,259/- towards sales tax. Out of this, according to the Ld. D.R., an amount of Rs. 9,43,078/- was refundable to the assessee since a credit note was issued to Jet Airways for the excess amount collected. The Commercial Tax Officer adjusted the balance amount of Rs. 18,87,096/- towards penalty under the Sales Tax Act. According to the Ld. D.R., the penalty and the amount to the extent the credit note issued to Jet Airways cannot be allowed as deduction. 8. On the contrary, Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid Rs. 2,33,44,828/- towards laundry charges to the sister concern. Since the payment was considered to be unreasonable and excess when compared to the market rate, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer disallowed the payment, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee. 12. On the contrary, Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is supplying food and beverages to the airlines and also rendering laundry service. To carry out laundry service, the assessee engaged its sister concern. The payment made to sister concern is less than the market rate. According to the Ld. counsel, the laundry services are provided to employees of the airlines, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als), after reproducing the written submission and arguments of the assessee, allowed the claim of the assessee without any discussion. When the payment was disallowed at the rate of 20% on the ground that it was excessive of the market rate, it is for the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) to bring on record how the payments made by the assessee are on par with market rate. No doubt, the laundry service needs to be provided at the highest standard required by the airlines. The question arises for consideration is whether the standard of service maintained by the assessee is on par with the market rate which is otherwise available in the market? Therefore, it is necessary for the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) to ascertain from ....