DCIT(IT) 3(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LRQA LIMITED, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWALAssessment Year: 2013-14
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 57, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1066203030(1), dated 28.06.2024, passed against the assessment order by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)- 3(1)(2), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 29.04.2016, for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 LRQA Ltd. Assessment Year 2013-14
Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the law the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the payment of Management charges of Rs. 90,81,234/- which was disallowed u/s 40(a) (ia) of the I. T. Act., despite section 40(a) (i) of the Income Tax Act stating that amounts on which taxes were deductible but have not been deducted by the deductor, are not allowable expenses as deduction unless such tax is deducted and paid?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the law the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the nature of management charge payment, the management charges having been paid at cost plus a mark up 8%, however, no basis of determination of cost being given, the amount having been paid on the basis of debit notes raised at the very end of accounting year, i.e. on 28.03.2011 and 31.03.2011?
(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the law the learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Lloyd's Register Asia does not the nature of expense non identical in the case of the assessee?.
Through this appeal, revenue has contested on allowing the payment of management charges of Rs.90,81,234/- which was disallowed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Revenue further contests that there is no basis for determination of cost since management charges have been paid at cost plus a mark- up of 8%. According to the Revenue, these amounts have been paid on the basis of debit notes at the end of the accounting year and learned CIT(A) has not considered nature of management charges which had been paid by the assessee.
At the outset, from the perusal of Form No.36 filed by the Revenue, we note that the total tax effect in the present appeal on the grounds contested amounts to Rs.36,16,298/-. A specific query was raised by the Bench to the learned Senior DR on this quantum of total effect which is below the monetary limit of Rs.60 Lakhs prescribed in Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for the purpose of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Nothing contrary was furnished to this effect. It 3 LRQA Ltd. Assessment Year 2013-14
was also enquired if the issue falls within any of the exceptions provided in the said Circular. On this also, nothing was placed on record. Accordingly, in the given set of facts on record, the said appeal is covered by the said CBDT Circular where the total tax effect is below the threshold of monetary limit of Rs.60 Lakhs. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn
5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 26 August, 2025 (Saktijit Dey)
Accountant Member
Dated: 26 August, 2025
Milan, LDC.
Copy to :
1 The Appellant
2 The Respondent
3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai
4
5
Guard File
CIT
BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.