DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. VENKATESH SANJEEV KAMATH, MUMBAI

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25.12.2012 passed the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai in respect of the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2009-10 on the following grounds: - “

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal with regard to disallowance of Rs.18,92,931/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act made by the AO with regard to non-deduction of TDS on freight charges paid to non-resident shipping company.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that M/s.EMU Lines Pvt. Ltd has been covered by the tower deduction certificate issued by the department even though the certificate has not mentioned the name of M/s. EMU Lines Pvt. Ltd.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal with regard to disallowance of Rs.15,40,906/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act made by the AO with regard to payment of export commission to non- resident agents.

Shri Venkatesh Sanjeev Kamath 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that no income is accrued or arising to the non-resident to whom the export commission has been paid and hence, no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is necessary. 5 The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.