ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. SKY SHIPPING, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3731/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 October 2017AY 2011-123 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 affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity as it correctly followed the ITAT's prior decision on identical facts. The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision had not been altered by any higher authority.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed reimbursement expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether reimbursement expenses are subject to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) when the assessee has followed the precedent set by the Tribunal in its own case for earlier years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
For Respondent: Shri Mehul Shah
Hearing: 26/10/2017Pronounced: 27/10/2017

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) -28, Mumbai dated 30/03/2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short “the Act) dated 18/03/2014.

2.

The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following Grounds of appeal:-

1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made under section 40a(ia) in respect of reimbursement expenses by following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09. However, the said decision of Hon'ble ITAT has not been accepted by the department and appeals in both the years are still pending before the Bombay High Court for final disposal?" 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Custom house clearing and forwarding. The assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2011 declaring total income at Rs.43,21,698/- and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 18/03/2014 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,02,01,640/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.1,50,34,132/- being 5% of expenses incurred of Rs.30,06,82,658/- on account of transporters charges, Crane/Forklift/Labour charges and Warehousing charges comprised in the ‘reimbursable expenditure’. On appeal, CIT(A) deleted the disallowance following the decision of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2007-08 & 2008- 09 in and 7503/M/2011 respectively. The findings of the CIT(A) read as under:-

“ I have carefully considered the matter and find that the facts and issue in the present appeal is identical to the case of the appellant in A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09 before the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai. Respectfully following the decision of the ITAT in the appellant’s own case for the A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008- 09, the disallowance made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of reimbursement expenses is hereby deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.”

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Ld.Representative for the assessee strongly supported the order of CIT(A).

5.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) since he has rightly followed the order of ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years, on identical facts and circumstances. It is also not in dispute that the order of the Tribunal dated 12/11/2014(supra) relied by the CIT(A) continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority. We therefore, affirm the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2017.

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 →