TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon issue is involved, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of tractors, trailers, bus chassis, road machinery and construction equipment. The TDS Officer had noticed that in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee-company made certain disallowances suo motu u/s 40(a)(i)and 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'']. Based on this information, the TDS officer had inferred that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tax deduction at source does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed in support of this on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of IDBI vs. ITO (107 ITD 45). The ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Cochin Bench in the case of Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (35 taxmann.com 155) wherein the decision of the Mumbai bench in the case of Pfizer was Ltd., was distinguished and not followed by holding that the express provisions contained in section 194A were not considered. Further the ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the contention that provision made is only on ad hoc basis and therefore TDS provisions are not attracted, as the liability was already created for services already received by vendors in terms of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and had not committed any default to justify the application ofthe Vrovisions of Sections 201 (1) & 201 (IA) ofthe Act. 5. On the facts, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Appellant and ought not to have confirmed the levy as made by the assessing officer under Sections & 201 (1 A) ofthe Act. 6. Without prejGdice, the additions sustained by the CIT (Appeals) are arbitrary, excessive, unreasonable and ought to be deleted in toto. 7. For these and such Other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that ad hoc provisions were created at the year-end in conformity with the accounting princi....