Mumbai ITAT deletes
addition u/s. 41(1) [on account of cessation of trading liability] in case
assessee-company (engaged in engineering, designing services for oil & gas
industry) with respect to outstanding commission payable to its agent in Kuwait
(‘creditor’) for AY 2011-12; ITAT notes that assessee had entered into
MoU with the creditor for procuring business for assessee in Kuwait, noting
that the creditor did not make any request for clearance of commission of
Rs. 34.90 lakhs outstanding for more than 1460 days, AO made addition u/s.
41(1) treating it as liability ceased; Rejecting Revenue’s action, ITAT notes
that under the MoU, commission was payable only on realization of proceeds from
customers procured by agent, thus observes that the commission payable was
outstanding as the agent could not recover sales proceeds from customer;
Holds that by withholding commission payments of agent with respect to overdue
payment from its debtors, assessee has acted in a manner consistent with
principles of commercial expediency and in accordance with the terms of MOU,
thus remarks that “ … Revenue cannot direct assessee to act in a manner in
defiance to the principles of commercial expediency and in turn to damage its
own business interest.”; Observes that assessee had also produced details
of court cases at Kuwait and correspondences with its overseas buyers/agents
with respect to its efforts for making recovery etc. to justify that the
payments were still due from the customers:ITAT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GAAR Not Applicable to Genuine Capital Market Transactions: Telangana High Court
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court held that General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) cannot be invoked merely because a transacti...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
F.No.354/66/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs...
-
M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38....
No comments:
Post a Comment