BHAVIK RAJESH KHANDHAR SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the addition was made for Rs. 2,45,340/-, while the debit note mentioned Rs. 2,28,000/-. Since the Revenue did not controvert the assessee's claim that the payee offered income and paid taxes, the matter was remanded for examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee is aggrieved by an addition of Rs. 2,45,340/- made by invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee contended that the payment was a reimbursement of expenditure incurred by another entity on behalf of the assessee, and the payee had offered the income and paid taxes.
What were the issues?
Whether the payment made by the assessee was a reimbursement of expenditure, and if so, whether TDS was deductible. Whether the payee had offered the income and paid taxes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh
आदेश / O R D E R The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/05/2017 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground agitated by the ld. counsel for the assessee is with respect to confirming the addition of Rs. 2,45,340/- invoking 2 Bhavik Rajesh Khandhar Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).
During the hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee Shri Dilip Lakhani contended that the assessee made the payments to M/s. Rajesh Enterprises, being the reimbursement of expenditure incurred by M/s. Rajesh Enterprises on behalf of the assessee and there was no obligation upon the assessee to deduct tax at source on reimbursement of expenditure. It was pleaded that M/s.Rajesh Enterprises actually recovered the expenses from the assessee. My attention was invited to page No. 38 of the paper book containing a debit note of Rs.2,28,000/-, which has been included in the balance sheet 31/03/2011 (page No. 36 of the paper book) in its income and expenditure account. My attention was further invited to page No. 30 of the paper book, letter dated 21/10/2013 containing the details of expenses amounting to Rs.2,28,000/- addressed to the DCIT by the assessee. It was further contended that the payee to whom the payment was made he offered income and paid taxes. This claim of the assessee was not controverted by the Revenue, but it was added that the appeal may be 3 Bhavik Rajesh Khandhar Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. sent to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and since the addition has been made of Rs. 2,45,340/- on which no TDS was deducted and the provision of section 40(a)(ia) was invoked, whereas in the debit note the income has been mentioned at Rs. 2,28,000/-, therefore, in fitness of things I am of the view that it needs examination at the level of the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee be given opportunity to substantiate his claim. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 13/02/2018.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026