2014 (12) TMI 1359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 201(1) /201(1A) of the Act when the assessee has not paid any payments to the stockiests and when the relationship between both of them is in the nature of "principal to principal‟. It is the case of the Revenue that the stockiests have rendered some managerial services and therefore, the provisions of section 194J of the Act applies and the Assessing Officer has rightly passed the order u/s 201(1) read with section 201(1A) of the Act. 2. On this issue, at the very outset, while the Ld DR relying on the order of the Assessing Officer, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the order of the CIT (A) in general and para 4.4 in particular and mentioned that the CIT (A) has relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....old itself as an agent of the assessee / appellant. In that case, the assessee sold the products to the super-stockiest and the super-stockiest was to make payment for the product sold within 45 days, whereas in the case of the appellant the goods are sold to the stockiest against the demand draft. 4.5. In the case of Piramal Healthcare Ltd., the responsibility of the said-stockiest as per agreement was that it would be responsible for getting stock of the manufactured products of the assessee company, for onward transmission to the market, through the retailer and in the appellant‟s case also the stockiests are purchasing the goods from the appellant for onward transmission to the market. In view of the same it is evident th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e facts are identical to the instant case. Accordingly, after hearing both the parties, we find the order of the CIT (A) on this issue is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Thus, ground nos.1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue in all the four AYs (2007-08 to 2010-11) under consideration are dismissed. 5. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. C.O.No.12/M/2014 (AY 2007-2008) C.O.No.13/M/2014 (AY 2008-2009) C.O.No.14/M/2014 (AY 2009-2010) C.O.No.15/M/2014 (AY 2010-2011) 6. In all the four Cross Objections filed by the assessee, ground no.1 is identical and that relates to the issues raised by the Revenue in their appeals which were adjudicated in the above paras of thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut prejudice, assessee submitted that the Directors have already included such sitting fees in their return of income and paid taxes thereon. In such circumstances, the assessee cannot be asked to pay the taxes on such payments. On these arguments, CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and delete the addition if the claim of the assessee is found proper. 9. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the amended provisions of section 194J and submitted that the provisions of clause-(ba) was inserted w.e.f 1.7.2012 by the Finance Act, 2012. In this regard, he read out the relevant provisions which read as under: "Sec: 194J(1) [(ba): any remuneration or fees ....