TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), dated 06-01-2015. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows:- 1. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 was not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing a sum of Rs. 18,16,096/-, under section 40(a)(ia), being amount paid to transporters on account of handling and warehouse collection charges in addition to freight on the ground that tax was not deducted at source from such payments u/s 194C of the Act. 2. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has also failed to appreciate the fact that the handling and warehouse collection charges paid to transporters ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....warehousing and movement of tea. These amounts formed part and parcel of the transporters' bills, in addition to freight payable. The amount relating to freight has been debited under "primary freight expenses" and "secondary freight expenses", and the handling and collection expenses have been debited under "warehousing & collection charges". It is evident from the provisions of section 194C(6) that any sum paid to the contractor (transporter) for hiring vehicles for movement of goods is not eligible to TDS, subject to the condition that the transporter has furnished his PAN. Hence, there was no requirement for deduction of tax at source from such amounts credited and paid U/s 194C of the Act. However, the assessing officer rejected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing cross verified from the respective bills of the transporters. Moreover, while making payment, the assessee has received PAN of the transporter, therefore, no TDS is attracted in the assessee`s case. 6. On the other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the assessing officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para, and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 7. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has reimbursed the collection charges and pick up charges to the various transporters, and this fact can be verified from the copies of freight bills and ledger account of warehousing collection charges (pb.23). The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004 523.00 597.00 30.00 5.00 30.00 - 1,185.00 6/8/2004 573.00 1,265.00 67.00 5.00 1,537.00 - 3,447.00 19/8/2004 978.00 2,705.00 137.00 5.00 1,538.00 - 5,363.00 20/8/2004 388.00 806.00 41.00 5.00 2,030.00 - 3,270.00 20/8/2004 1,285.00 3,300.00 165.00 5.00 30.00 - 4,785.00 1/10/2004 812.00 2,640.00 133.00 5.00 2,823.00 - 6,413.00 10/11/2004 523.00 1,518.00 74.00 5.00 30.00 - 2,150.00 2/12/2004 1,078.00 2,200.00 112.00 5.00 30.00 - 3,425.00 25/12/2004 1,111.00 2,846.00 143.00 5.00 3,030.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the decision in the case of ACIT V. Grandprix Fab. (P) Ltd,. (2010) 128 TTJ 60 (Del.), wherein the Tribunal vide para 16 has held as under: "16. In respect of the payment towards agency charges amounting to Rs.l,01,219,the assesee has deducted tax amounting to Rs. 2,094 at source, and the said payment has not been disallowed by the A. O. The other two payments are towards payment of customs duty, and other expenses paid by the agent for/on behalf of the assessee. These reimbursement expenses were not made towards any services rendered by the agent, but have been made to set off of the expenses incurred by the agent while clearing the imported goods from the customs for /on behalf of the assessee. Since no element of income is ....