TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rent for computer of Rs.60,49,727/- paid by the assessee without deducting any tax at source violating the provision of section 194I of the IT Act read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (iii) The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in giving relief for payment of indemnity insurance expense of Rs.7,75,567/- not incurred exclusively for the purpose of business in contrary to the provision of u/s 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue relates to payment of subscription & technology fee of Rs.44,27,412/- paid by assessee without deducting any tax at sources, violating the provision of section 194J of the Act read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4.When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 11/07/2018, passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.587 & 588/Kol/2016, for assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12, whereby the issue of payment of subscription & technology feehas been discussed.Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....system of accounting and the AO has not disputed the system of accounting. The AO has concluded that the assessee had paid for the professional services rendered by DHS, Mumbai without specifying the nature and details of services rendered by DHS, Mumbai. The assessee has furnished copies of debit notes issued by DHS, Mumbai mentioning the amount debited as "being your share of DTT Operational Budget (Subscription Fee) & Tech, Subscription Fees paid to Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu, New York" which have not been questioned by the AO. The assessee has also furnished evidence to prove that the assessee is a member of the global network of DTT, enjoys certain advantages as a result of the membership and has paid its contribution of the subscription to the membership of the global network. 11. We note that Hon`ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. [2018] 92 taxmann.com 30 (Bombay) held that reimbursement of expenses is not taxable. Similarly, the Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 359 (Karnataka), held as follows: "11.This provision makes it clear that deduction at source shall be o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own case (supra) and the ld. DR for the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings and there is no change in facts and law and the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee, we find no infirmity in the order passed by ld CIT(A), hence we decline to interfere in the said order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue relates to relief for payment of rent for computer of Rs.60,49,727/- paid by the assessee without deducting any tax at source violating the provision of section 194I of the IT Act read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the said issue is covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No.587 & 588/Kol/2016, Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12, whereby the Tribunal has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on identical issues. The relevant para of the order of the Tribunal is given below: "16. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we note that the assessee has f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. On these reasoning, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter - and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee - we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken. We note that there is no change in facts of the assessee under consideration and this ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) deleting the aforesaid addition. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the ground No.2 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.587/Kol/2016 and ground No.1 raised by Revenue in ITA No.588/Kol/2016, are dismissed." 10. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra) and the ld. DR for the Revenue is unable to produce any material ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said expenditure. 6. The ld. CIT(A) making the same observations confirmed the said disallowance made by the AO. 7. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties and also have gone through the records. The ld. representative of the assessee submitted before us that the said expenditure was not incurred on the life insurance of the partners rather the same was in relation to professional indemnity insurance of the partners of the firm. 8. Since the firm is providing professional services and as such the professional indemnity insurance premium thus was related to the professional activity of the partners of the firm and was for indemnification of any loss arising out of any claim of damages or compensation payable by the assessee firm or its partners in relation to the professional services provided by them to their clients. Under such circumstances the observation of the lower authorities that the said expenditure was in relation to personal expenditure is wrong and accordingly the addition made under this head is hereby set aside. This ground of appeal is also allowed in favour of the assessee." We note that the facts narrated in the case of M/s. A.F. Ferguson....