Case Law Details
Case Name : Mitsutor Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 3103/MUM/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/04/2011
Related Assessment Year : 2007- 08
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Mitsutor Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The assessee was owner of the premises in which it was carrying on business. The assessee paid maintenance charges to the society of Apartment Owners. According to the AO the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the payment of maintenance charges to the society as the payment by the assessee to the society was in the nature of contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 194C was applicable.
Under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act where assessee has an obligation to deduct tax at source before making payment and where such tax is not deducted by an assessee the payment made without deduction of tax at source which is claimed as expenditure while computing total income is liable to be disallowed. According to the AO the payment of maintenance charges to the society by the assessee was in the nature of payment to contractor for carrying out any work attracting the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Since tax was not deducted at source while making payment, the AO invoked the provisions section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added a sum of Rs. 1,72,455/- to the total income of the assessee.
On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO, hence, ground No. 2 by the assessee before the Tribunal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Our company is owner of the society which is registered.The society’s premises given on lease basis but the maintenance is paid by us (company), can you please help us regarding this
can this be argued that service tax not applicable when the building is embaded on the earth, and not movable.
in entral excise there is no duty for captive consuptions i.e the inputs where manufactured with in the factory and used for mfrg final product, where that final product only dutiable. similalry underservice tax can this be aruged that the builder does self service on his own before completion of appartments, handing over pocession of appartments, and then getting it registered the property to buyers name
there are lot of refund pending in service tax for the service tax paid before prior to july 2010 on construction of appartments. most of the cases where builder paid service not able to get refund because of unjust enrichment. in this cases where the buyers as individual paid service tax thru the builders who have deposited to govt., prior july 2010, the owner/buyer of the appartment not able to get the refund from the service tax dept., even though the refund of service file before the authorites, well in time
is there any rulling in the refund case above decided by CESTAT, High court,& SC.
WHAT THE FINANCE MINISTRY, REVNUE DEPT, CBEC IS DECIDED TO THE SETTLE ALL VOLUMINOUS REFUNDS OF SERVICE TAX TO OWNERS OF APPARTMENTS WHO HAVE PAID SERVICE TAC PRIOR TO JULY 2010.