Case Law Details
Vandana Dinehkumar Inani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
In this case there was an arrangement between the assessee and warehouses, that the assessee will store the grains in the warehouses for which assessee was liable to pay certain charges. These are nothing but rent as defined in section 194I. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. The assessee failed to deduct the tax at source. Hence as per section 40(a)(ia) the amount needs to be disallowed. The Ld.AR submitted that the actual amount was paid by the purchaser directly to the warehouses. However, this does not change the character of the Rent. It was the liability of the assessee. The assessee has admittedly debited the said amounts in its books. It is also a fact that assessee could not file any confirmations from the warehouses that they have shown the amounts as Income and paid taxes. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) was right. Accordingly the disallowance of Rs.69,27,693/- is upheld.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi dated 16.12.202 1 emanating from the assessment order dated 11.12.2019 under section 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the I.T.Act, 1961 for A.Y.2009-10. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance made by AO, of an amount of Rs.69,27,693/- out of storage charges reimbursed by the appellant to the customers by invoking provisions of section 4o(a)(ia) in view of the following:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
