TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1040
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-08. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law by holding that the provisions of Section 194H would apply when the payments are made to the agents or credited to the agents' accounts whichever is earlier and not when the payment is credited to the provisions account even though the Explanation (iv) of Section 194H states that "where any income is credited to any account, whether called "suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of accounts of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be income to the account of the payee and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 19.01.2012, allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal, by an order dated 07.03.2014, dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue, while inviting the attention of this Court to Explanation (iv) to Section 194H of the Act, submitted that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 6,46,11,000/- to profit and loss account pertaining to provision towards commission and since the assessee failed to comply wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid expenditure and the same is not a revenue expenditure. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER' (2020) 426 ITR 0289 (SC), 'THE DIRECTOR PRASAR BHARATI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX' (2018) 403 ITR 0161 (SC) AND 'PINGLE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX' (1960) 40 ITR 0067. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 14,84,11,000/- as sales commission out of which a sum of Rs. 6,46,11,000/- has been credited to a provision account which was part of his commission. It is pointed out that no part of said sum of Rs. 6,46,11,000/- was credited to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt number is obtained from such party. It is impossible for the assessee to deduct TDS on the provisions when party has not been identified. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn as the assessee could not perform the impossible. It is further submitted that in light of 1st proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2010, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not required. It is further submitted that so far as issue with regard to disallowance of consultancy charges is concerned, while considering the nature of expenditure to the capital or revenue the test to be applied is also whether there is any new asset being created or whether it is giving any enduring benefit and the tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2006 07, 2008-09 and 2009-10. From perusal of the aforesaid orders of assessment, similar provisions were made in earlier years as well as subsequent years by the assessee and the TDS was not deducted on the provisions. However, the Department has not made any additions with regard to the provisions made during the years in which returns of income were selected for scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the first substantial question of law on the analogy of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 9. So far as second substantial question of law is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition holding that the expenditure w....