GRAPHIC AIDS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 29,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 555/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 February 2016AY 2008-20092 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that computer maintenance charges are not for technical services and thus Section 194J is not applicable. Regarding delivery charges, the Tribunal found the expenses to be genuine and deleted the disallowance.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed computer maintenance charges and delivery charges as expenses. The AO disallowed computer maintenance charges for non-deduction of TDS and made a partial disallowance on delivery charges due to self-made vouchers.

What were the issues?

Whether computer maintenance charges are covered under Section 194J for TDS purposes and whether disallowance of delivery charges is justified based on internal vouchers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]

Hearing: 02.02.2016Pronounced: 02.02.2016

For the Appellant: Shri Om Prakash Baid, FCA For the Respondent: Shri S. M. Das, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XVI, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 45/CIT(A)-XVI/Cir-29/10-11/Kol dated 02.01.2013. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle- 29, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order dated 21.12.2010.

2.

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing computer maintenance charges of Rs.28,090/- for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194J of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

3.

I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find from the facts of the case that the assessee has carried out routine maintenance of computer hardware and peripherals etc. which does not involve any specialized technical expertise. Hence, the payment cannot be termed as falling u/s. 194J of the Act being payment for technical services. These are merely routine maintenance of computer hardware and peripherals and accordingly, the provisions of section 194J will not apply and, therefore, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made. Accordingly, I delete the addition and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal.

4.

The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in restricting the disallowance at Rs.33,638/- as against the disallowance made by AO at Rs.1,20,6165/-.

5.

I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the AO required the details of delivery charges expenses of Rs.6,03,082/- incurred by the assessee. The assessee produced vouchers which were self made internal debit vouchers and AO was not satisfied about the genuineness of these expenses and accordingly, he treated 20%

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 →