2022 (6) TMI 754

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A. No. 853/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in granting relief to the assessee on account of claim of additional depreciation U/s. 31(1)(iia) of the said Act of Rs.77,78,79,369/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the Provision came into effect subsequent to the year under consideration in respect of the business of generation and distribution of power, in which the assessee was engaged?" We have heard Mr. Subhas Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel for 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 Authority which have not been properly appreciated. To test the correctness of this finding, we have carefully perused the assessment order dated 28.12.2007 and in paragraph 7.3 of the said order, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the issue on hand and by pointing out of the fact, the Income Tax Act does not grant any exceptional clause by which non-deduction of tax at source can be resorted to by the assessee under the garb of reimbursement. Thus, on facts, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the stand taken by the assessee. Before the Appellate Authority the assessee once again reiterated the contention stating that no tax needs to be deducted at source on the reimbursement. This aspect of the matter was considered by the First Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee will pay commission to the consignment agent. Further noting the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that deduction of tax at source under Section 194C is required to be made on "any sum paid" by the assessee to clearing and forwarding agent and it includes reimbursement of the expenditure. In this regard, the clarification issued by the CBDL was referred to. The decision in DLF Commercial Project Corporation, which was rendered following the decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. would be wholly applicable to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the Court had approved the concurrent finding rendered by the First Appellate Authority. The facts of the case on hand has been noted by the CIT(A), who has ....