DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (I) LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6386/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 April 2018AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reimbursements were on a cost-to-cost basis and not for contract work. Following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years with identical facts, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance pertained to reimbursements of Rs. 3,51,21,965/- made by the assessee to group companies for employee and facility expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether reimbursements to group companies for shared expenses are subject to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 192C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Kirit Kamdar, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR, Mr. Kirit Kamdar, AR
Hearing: 15/03/2018Pronounced: 18/04/2018

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

The ground raised

by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,51,21,965/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) when it has been clearly demonstrated that the so called reimbursements were actually payments on contractual nature as per agreements in an organized manner being made every year and not subjecting to such payments to above provisions would render them redundant.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the audit report (Note ‘G’ of Schedule 12) mentions that Rs.3,51,21,965/- under various heads were reimbursed to group companies for expenses pertaining to employees and facilities in accordance with agreements on allocation of expenses to the company. In response to a query raised by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee submitted vide letter dated 27.11.2013 that the following amounts were reimbursed to group companies. a) Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,21,81,813/- b) Monsanto India Ltd. Rs.1,29,40,152/- Total Rs.3,51,21,965/- The AO held that the assessee is liable to make tax deduction at source (TDS) u/s 192C and further, if there is no deduction of the same or after deduction, there is no payment of the same to the government account, then the same is disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia). Thus the AO made a disallowance of the above reimbursement of Rs.3,51,21,965/- u/s 40(a)(ia).

4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10 in the case of the assessee and deleted the above disallowance of Rs.3,51,21,965/-.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →