Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Burt Hill Design Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 2039/Ahd/2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/03/2017
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 10th July 2012, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10.

2. Grievances raised by the assessee, in substance, are against learned CIT(A)’s upholding (i) the disallowance , under section 40(a)(i), of Rs 4,54,28,424, in respect of reimbursement of payroll costs, and of Rs 16,86,463, in respect of reimbursement of related professional and legal fees, to Burt Hill Inc USA; (ii) the disallowance of Rs 12,77,927 in respect of medical insurance premium paid for the employees, placed at the disposal of the assessee under secondment agreement with Burt Hill Inc USA; and (iii) the disallowance of Rs 1,50,000 being house rent paid to Managing Director of the assessee company. For the record, however, the detailed grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are set out below:

1. (a) The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 4,54,28,424/- being expenditure incurred on pay-roll ( man power) costs of the employees of the company who were working in India for the appellant company’s business operations on full time basis under the secondment agreement paid by way of reimbursement to its parent foreign company i.e. Burt, Hill Inc, USA.

(b) The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 16,86,463/- being expenditure on legal and professional fees paid by way of reimbursement to its parent foreign company i.e. Burt, Hill Inc, USA.

(c) The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.4, 71,14,887/- (Rs. 4,54,28,424/- on account of reimbursement of expenditure on pay-roll costs + Rs. 16,86,463/- on account of reimbursement of legal and professional fees) by arbitrarily holding that the payments are in the nature of fees for technical services and therefore chargeable to tax in the hands of the payee in India u!s. 9(1)(vii) of the I. T. Act.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031