Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (4) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), whereby the Ld. Commissioner deleted the additions of Rs. 1,64,02,845/- and 67,68,768/- made by the AO. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assesseehad e-filed its return of income on dated 28.09.2012 by declaring loss of Rs. (-) 4,18,78,678/-, which came into scrutiny and resulted into assessing the income of the Assessee to the tune of Rs.(-) 1,87,07,069/- by passing the Assessment Order U/s 143(3) of the Act and making of additions of Rs. 1,64,02,845/- on account of trade creditors outstanding for payment as on 31.03.2012 and of Rs. 67,68,768/- on account of non-deduction of TDS qua payment of marketing expenses. 3. Against the said additions/Assessment Order, theAssessee preferred an appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r in question. The appellant has relied on a number of judicial pronouncements to argue that the creditors could not be treated as unexplained where payments had been made by account payee cheque which were duly debited to the assessee's bank account, and where the purchases and sales had been accepted by the department, including the purchases made on credit. In the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal (2010), taxmann.com 134, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that where there was no case for disallowance of corresponding purchases, no addition can be made u/s 68 as the creditors' balances related to purchases, and the trading results were accepted by the AO. Considering all the facts stated above, as well as the cited judg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isation levy has been introduced to tax the income accruing to foreign e-commerce companies from India, requiring that a person making payment exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- in a year to a non resident, who does not have a permanent establishment in India, will withhold tax at 6% of the gross amount. The appellant has argued accordingly that prior to 01.06.2016, online advertising did not attract deduction of tax at source. 6.1 Section 9 of the Income Tax Act provides that business income is taxable in India only if such income accrues or arises through or from a business connection in India. Under section 195 of the Act, the liability to deduct tax at source by the payee on payment made to a foreign company arises only where such income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 6. We are deciding this appeal by ground wise. 7. Ground no. 1: By way of ground no. 1 the Revenue Department claimed that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the action of the AO regarding addition made u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,64,02,845/- towards trade creditor outstanding for payment as on 31.03.2012 as per balance sheet of the Assessee company and, therefore, the order under challenge is perverse, improper and against the facts a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts, the Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition in hand. 7.2 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above factual position and determination made by the Ld. Commissioner. Before us the aforesaid facts remained un-controverted and even otherwise we do not find any material and/or any plausible reason to take a contrary view against the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner. Consequently, ground no. 1 stands dismissed. 8. Coming to the 2ndGround, which relates to the making of addition of Rs. 67,68,768/- on account of non-deduction of TDS qua payments of marketing expenses, which was deleted by the Ld. Commissioner. It was claimed by the Assessee that as the Assessee had made the payment to Facebook Ireland Inc. (In short "....