DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. GOLDMAN SACHS (I) UINANCE P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6871/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2016AY 2011-122 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that no TDS was required on reimbursed expenses. This was based on the consistent view taken by coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases for prior years.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision that no disallowance was required under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement of expenses. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had previously ruled in their favor on identical issues in earlier assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable for non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement of expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistry
Hearing: 5.7.2016Pronounced: 5.7.2016

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.7.2014 passed by learned CIT(A)-2, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in holding that no disallowance is required to be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source on reimbursement of expenses.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that identical issue came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in earlier years namely in relating to A.Y. 2009-10 and ITA No. 2227/Mum/2015 relating to A.Y. 2010-11, in assessee’s own case and the Tribunal has held that there is no requirement to deduct TDS from expenditure reimbursed by the assessee. Learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by him in A.Y. 2009-10, which has since been upheld by the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Since the view taken by learned CIT(A) on this issue is in accordance with the decision rendered by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, we do not find any infirmity in the decision rendered by learned CIT(A).

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 5.7.2016

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 →