Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd., 10, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Charni Road, Mumbai 400 004 Vs. DCIT 5(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020
March, 30th 2015
                   IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
                          MUMBAI BENCH "C", MUMBAI

           BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
                  SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                   ITA No.7241/M/2012
                                 Assessment Year: 2009-10

           M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.,        DCIT 5(2),
           10, Prasad Chambers,                   Aayakar Bhavan,
           Opera House,                       Vs. M.K. Road,
           Charni Road,                           Mumbai - 400020
           Mumbai ­ 400 004
           PAN: AAACP0482E
                 (Appellant)                          (Respondent)


      Assessee by                      : Shri Rajesh Athavale, A.R. & Shri Prasad Bapat, A.R
      Revenue by                       : Shri Vivek A. Perampurna, D.R.

      Date of Hearing                  : 20.03.2015
      Date of Pronouncement            : 27.03.2015

                                         ORDER


Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

      The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9 [hereinafter referred to CIT(A)],
Mumbai, dated 09.10.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10.

2.    The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal.
      "1.       On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
      learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of disallowance of
      foreign exchange loss on account of marking to mark to market of forward
      contracts of Rs. 18,22,633

      2.        On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
      learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of disallowance of
      foreign exchange loss on account of forex derivative contracts of Rs
      1,94,000 by treating it as speculation loss.

      3.          On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
                                            2                                  ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                       M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



      learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of disallowing
      Professional Fees u/s 40A(2)(b) paid to Anand Automotive Systems Limited
      of Rs 34,78,043 as excessive and unreasonable.

      4.        On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
      learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of disallowing share of
      common marketing expenses of Rs 1,44,70,000 u/s 40(a)(ia)."


Additional grounds:

      "1.       Without prejudice to Ground no 1 of the original ground of appeal
      the CIT (A) erred in observing that it is the finding given by learned AO that
      booking and cancellation of forward contracts of exchange were not in
      respect of specified export or import orders whereas actually the forward
      coverage was taken by the appellant against the export receivable. (Page 18
      Para 5.2.21 of the CIT(A) order)

      2.        On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
      learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground no 2 raised before CIT(A) on the
      ground that the appellant has not pressed this ground.

      3.        Without prejudice to Ground No 4 of the original grounds of
      appeal the learned CIT(A) erred in stating that the learned AR has admitted
      that it had deducted tax at source while making payment to M/s Anand
      Automotive Systems Limited, but the appellant failed to deduct tax at
      source while making payments to M/s Victor Gaskets India Limited.

      4.       Without prejudice to Ground No 4 of the original grounds of
      appeal the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the payment made to
      M/s Victor Gaskets India Limited on account of share of common marketing
      expenses are reasonable and are incurred wholly and exclusively for the
      purpose of business.

      5.        Without prejudice to Ground No 4 of the original grounds of
      appeal and above grounds the payments made to M/s Victor Gaskets India
      Limited be allowed as per second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income
      Tax Act, 1961."

Ground No.1 & Additional Ground No.1: Disallowance of loss on mark to
market Forward Contracts;

3.    The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of
manufacturing rings and semi-finished castings (automobile parts). Assessee
entered into forward contracts in order to hedge the risk on adverse currency
                                       3                               ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                               M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



fluctuation in respect of export realisation to the tune of USD.6,00,000. Export
receivable of USD 1,73,670 was hedged and the balance forward contracts of
USD 4,26,330 were marked to market. The assessee incurred loss of INR
18,22,633 on mark to market. The Assessing officer held that that the Mark to
market lossess are purly notional losses. The assessee has not actually suffered
any loss and that it was only because that its assets are marked to market and
the resultant figure is a loss figure which was a notional figure and was not
deductable as business loss under the Income Tax Act. He therefore disallowed
the said mark to market loss
 The ld. CIT(A) as per his detailed findings given in the impugned order
confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee
has preferred the present appeal.

4.     Before us, the Ld. AR of the assesseee has contended that loss in mark
to market contracts was not a notional loss but was an ascertained loss. That
the assesseehas been taking forward contracts year on year to cover the adverse
currency fluctuation risk on export realization and has been consistently
accounting open forward contracts on mark to market at the year end and that
there was no change in the facts during the year under consideration. The
department has been accepting such accounting of mark to market open
forward contracts and no adjustment was made in the past as well as in future
assessment years. It has been further contended that Forward contracts were
taken during the normal course of the business of the assessee and therefore,
the mark to market loss on forward contracts should be allowed as deduction
under Section 37. Further that the assessee was not a dealer in foreign
exchange and that the forward contract in respect of foreign exchange
fluctuation risk in respect of export proceeds is excluded from the scope of
speculative transactions.
                                             4                                  ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                        M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



On the other hand the Ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the lower
authorities.


5.    We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue
relating to mark to market loss in forward contracts in foreign exchange has
come up for consideration before the coordinate bench of this Tribunal and
has been decided vide order dated 12.2.2014 in the case of "ACIT Vs. M/s S.
Rajiv & CO." ITA NO. 7095/Mum 2012, wherein the Tribunal has made the
following observations:
      "4. Before us, it has been submitted that this issue had come up for consideration
      in series of decisions of the co -ordinate bench of the Tribunal. Strong reliance was
      placed on the latest decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in London Star
      Diamond Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.6169/Mum./2012, order dated 11th
      October 2013. The relevant conclusion of the Tribunal is as under:-
               "35. x x x x
               (a) Loss on cancellation of Matured FCs amounting to Rs.4,14,88,805 relates
               to the FCs cancelled or terminated on or after the due date. In other words,
               the FCs booked as integral part of the export invoices lived its booking
               period in full and they were either terminated by the Bank on or after due
               date of maturity date of the contract as the actual realization were not
               received in time. These are not premature cancellations by the assessee and
               therefore, in our considered view, the said loss of Rs.4,14,88,805/-, being
               related to the FCs which are integral or incidental to the exports of the
               diamonds, should be allowed as business loss in view of the binding High
               Court or Tribunal decisions/judgments in the case of D Kishare kumar and
               Co (supra), Badridas Gauridu Pvt Ltd (supra), Saaroj Muill Magarmull (supra),
               etc. Thus, loss arising from cancellation of the matured contracts is allowed
               in favour of the assessee. Thus, this part of the ground of the assessee is
               allowed."




      5. Further, we find that this issue has also been decided by the Special Bench of the
      Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in DCIT v/s Bank of Bahrain (supra) wherein the Tribunal,
      while holding that Mark to Market losses in respect of forward foreign exchange
      contract debited to Profit & Loss account is an allowable deduction on the following
      reasoning:-

               "i) A binding obligation accrued against the Appellant the minutes it entered
               into forward foreign exchange contracts.
                                           5                                   ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                       M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



             ii) A consistent method of accounting followed by the Appellant cannot be
             disregarded. The Appellant has consistently followed the same method of
             accounting in regard to recognition of profit or loss both, in respect of
             forward foreign exchange contract as per the rate prevailing on March, 31.
             iii) A liability is said to have crystallized when a pending obligation on the
             balance sheet date is determinable with reasonable certainty.
             iv) As per AS-11, when the transaction is not settled in the same accounting
             period as that in which it occurred, the exchange difference arises over
             more than one accounting period.
             v) In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Woodward
             Governor India (I) P. Ltd., the Appellant's claim is allowable.
             vi) In the ultimate analysis, there is no revenue effect and it is only the
             timing of taxation of loss/profit."

      6. Thus, in view of the above, we uphold the findings of the learned Commissioner
      (Appeals) for allowing loss incurred by the assessee on re-statement of pending
      forward contract agreement at the year end as allowable business loss. Thus, the
      ground raised by the Revenue is treated as dismissed."

6.    It may be further observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
`CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd.' (2009) 179 Taxman 326, while dealing
with the question as to whether the additional liability arising on account of
fluctuation in the rate of exchange can be allowed to be adjusted pending
actual payment of the varied, has observed that "expenditure" as used in
section 37 in Income Tax Act may in the circumstances of a particular case
cover an amount which is a "loss" even though said amount has not been given
from the pocket of the assessee.

7.    While dealing with the issue of the nature of forward contracts in
commodity derivatives, the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of
`DCIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd.' relating to A.Y. 2008-09,[(2013)
59 SOT 4; 35 taxmann.com 225 (Mumbai-Trib.)] ( judicial member of the
bench being party to that order also) has observed that such type of forward
contracts are not purely contingent in nature rather loss or profit is somewhat
ascertainable in such type of contracts because of constant watch on daily
                                            6                                  ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                       M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



market rates. The quantum of profit or loss though not actually ascertainable
can be anticipated in view of the trends of the market. The difference between
the predetermined price and market price is settled daily on mark-to-market
basis. In such type of contracts, it is not the stock value which is subject
matter of the contract rather the contract itself is the stock in trade. Contracts
in such type of cases can be squared off before the arrival of actual
performance of date of contract, as the profit and loss are calculated on daily
basis and the margins are settled accordingly.

8.    It may be further observed that `foreign exchange forward contracts'
entered into for the purpose of hedging the loss in import- export transactions,
have been duly recognized and allowed by the Reserve Bank of India. Vide
Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign exchange derivative contracts)
Regulations, 2000, Notification No. FEMA25/RB-2000, dated 3rd May 2000,
Reserve Bank of India has defined the forward contract and foreign exchange
derivative contract as under:
      "2. (iv) 'Forward contract' means a transaction involving delivery, other than Cash
      or Tom or Spot delivery, of foreign exchange;
      (v) 'Foreign exchange derivative contract' means a financial transaction or an
      arrangement in whatever form and by whatever name called, whose value is
      derived from price movement in one or more underlying assets, and includes,
      (a) a transaction which involves at least one foreign currency other than currency of
      Nepal or Bhutan, or
      (b) a transaction which involves at least one interest rate applicable to a foreign
      currency not being a currency of Nepal or Bhutan , or
      (c) a forward contract, but does not include foreign exchange transaction for Cash
      or Tom or Spot deliveries;"

      Further such contracts have been permitted under the following
provisions:
      "4. Permission to a person resident in India to enter into a Foreign Exchange
      Derivative contract:-
      A person resident in India may enter into a foreign exchange derivative contract in
      accordance with provisions contained in Schedule I, to hedge an exposure to risk in
                                             7                                  ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                        M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



      respect of a transaction permissible under the Act, or rules or regulations or
      directions or orders made or issued thereunder."
      ...
      "Schedule I

      (See regulation 4)

      Foreign exchange derivative contract permissible for a person resident in India
      A. Forward Contract
      1. A person resident in India may enter into a forward contract with an authorised
      dealer in India to hedge an exposure to exchange risk in respect of a transaction for
      which sale and/or purchase of foreign exchange is permitted under the Act, or rules
      or regulations or directions or orders made or issued there under, subject to
      following terms and conditions) the authorised dealer through verification of
      documentary evidence is satisfied about the genuineness of the underlying
      exposure,
      b) the maturity of the hedge does not exceed the maturity of the underlying
      transaction,
      c) the currency of hedge and tenor are left to the choice of the customer,
      d) where the exact amount of the underlying transaction is not ascertainable, the
      contract is booked on the basis of a reasonable estimate,
      e) foreign currency loans/bonds will be eligible for hedge only after final approval is
      accorded by the Reserve Bank where such approval is necessary,
      f) in case of Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) the issue price has been finalised,
      g) balances in the Exchange Earner's Foreign Currency(EEFC) accounts sold forward
      by the account holders shall remain earmarked for delivery and such contracts shall
      not be cancelled. They may be ,however, be rolled-over,
      h) contracts involving rupee as one of the currencies, once cancelled shall not be
      re-booked although they can be rolled over at ongoing rates on or before
      maturity. This restriction shall not apply to contracts covering export transactions
      which may be cancelled, rebooked or rolled over at on-going rates,
      i) substitution of contracts for hedging trade transactions may be permitted by an
      authorized dealer on being satisfied with the circumstances under which such
      substitution has become necessary."
                                            (emphasis supplied by us)

9.     We may further observe from the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of
India relating to general principles to be observed for forward foreign exchange
contracts that the banks have been permitted to enter into such contracts after
thorough verification of documentary evidences etc. about the genuineness of the
underlying foreign currency exposure and the need of hedging of the loss. Further the
maturity of the hedge should not exceed the maturity of the underlying transaction.
                                           8                                 ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                     M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



10.    In view of the above discussions, it can be safely held that in case of
import/export business, where the transactions are demonetarized in the foreign
currencies and for the purpose of hedging of the anticipated loss resulting from such
import-export business and not otherwise, if the assessee enters into a forward
contract in foreign exchange, then such forward contracts are         to be treated as
integral part or incidental to the business of export/import and cannot be said to be
the speculative contracts attracting the provisions of section 43(5) of the Act. The
loss from such hedging transactions would be treated as business loss eligible to be
set off against the profits and gains of business and profession.

11.    It is held accordingly that the foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee
on account of entering into forward contracts with the banks for the purpose of
hedging the loss in connection with his import/export business cannot be held to be a
speculative loss rather a business loss which can be set off against profit and gains of
business subject to the condition that the assessee will have to satisfactorily prove
that the maturity of the hedge did not exceed the maturity of the underlying
transaction. The findings of the CIT(A) given vide impugned order are therefore set
aside and the issue is restored back to the file of the AO to decide the same
accordingly after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.


Ground No. 2 & Additional Ground No.2: Disallowance of foreign
exchange loss on cancellation of forward contracts of Rs.194000/- :
12.    The Ld. AR of the assessee has stated at Bar that as per instructions of his
clien, he does not press this Ground. He has also signed on the memo of Grounds of
appeal in this respect. We also find from the record that this ground has not been
pressed by the asessee before the Ld. CIT(A) also. Ground No. 2 is therefore
dismissed being not pressed.


13.    Ground No.3:Disallowance of Professional fees paid to Anand
Automotive Systems Ltd. INR 34,78,043 being 20% of INR 1,72,90,218 as
not being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business :
                                       9                               ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                               M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



      While scrutinizing the expenses of the assessee, the AO noticed that the
assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.1,23,90,218/- as professional fees paid to
one of its sister concern M/s. Anand Automotive Systems Limited. The AO
asked the assessee to justify the same. In response, the assessee replied that
the it had paid the said amount to M/s. Anand Automotive Systems Limited for
providing HRD, Marketing, Finance, Legal and Taxation, Operation Review,
Facilities, Government Liaison, Corporate Relations and Communication and
Support. However, the assessee failed to quantify the services rendered by the
said M/s. Anand Automotive Systems Limited. In the absence of any such
quantification of services actually rendered by the said sister concern, the AO
disallowed 20% of the expenditure paid to M/s. Anand Automotive Systems
Limited.
In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO on this
account.

14.   Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee belongs to Anand
Group of Companies. Assessee entered into Corporate Services Agreement
with Anand Automotive Systems Ltd. (AASL). It has been contended by the
assessee that the AASL was set up with the idea of providing under one roof
various professional, financial, tax, management and other consultancy
services including training to its client in these areas. The company has also
been providing transit house facilities. These services have been provided
either through its own infrastructure or by procuring the necessary professional
inputs from third parties. AASL is, therefore, a service company, the services
rendered by which are for the benefit of companies belonging to the Anand
Group. Professional fees paid to AASL was wholly and exclusively for the
purpose of assessee's business. Assessee has been paying professional fees and
rent to Anand Automotive Systems Ltd. for last 10-12 years and no such
                                       10                              ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                               M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



disallowance has been made in the past. It has been further conteded that as
there is no change in the facts during the year under appeal, no ad-hoc
disallowance should be called for. It has been further submitted by the Ld. AR
that ad-hoc addition (20% of cost) made in the hands of AASL for AY 2008-
09 by stating that less professional fees received by AASL from Anand group
companies has been deleted by the ITAT vide order dated 28.06.2013 in ITA
No. 1343/M/2012) further that the ad-hoc addition (20% of cost) made in the
hands of AASL for AY 2009-10 has been set aside to the AO by the ITAT vide
order dated31.01.2013 in ITA No. 7165/M/2012 and in the set aside
proceedings, the AO also deleted the said addition vide order dated
19.02.2014.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand has relied upon the findings of the lower
authorities.

15.   We have considered the rival contentions. The AO in the case in hand
has disallowed the expenditure incurred/paid to AASL being excessive or not
relating to the business activitiy of the assessee, the department on the other
hand had made the additions in the hand of AASL on the ground that the
income/ consideration for services provided by AASL to the assessee in this
case was less and therefore adhoc addition had been made in the case of
AASL. Thus the department has taken a contradictory stand. Under such
circumstances it is difficult to believe that the payment made by the assessee to
AASL for the services obtained was excessive or that it was not relating to the
business of the assessee. This ground is accordingly allowed in favour of the
assessee.

16.   Ground No.4; Additional Ground No. 3, 4 & 5: Disallowance of
sharing of common marketing expenses with Victor Gaskets India Limited
                                      11                               ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                               M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



INR 1,44,78,000 u/s.40(a)(ia) and without prejudice, 20% disallowed as
not being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business :

      The AO also noticed that the appellant had paid a sum of
Rs.1,44,78,000/- to M/s. Victor Gaskets India Limited (VGIL).                     These
payments were made in terms of the contract between the appellant and the
said M/s. Victor Gaskets India Limited; but the assessee had failed to deduct
taxes on the said payment of Rs.1,44,78,000/- paid to the said M/s. Victor
Gaskets India Limited. The AO show caused the assessee as to why the said
sum of Rs.1,44,78,000/- should not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the
Act. The assessee denied the TDS liability and said that the provisions of
section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable. The AO examined the contract between
the assessee and the said M/s. Victor Gaskets India Limited. The AO was of
the view that the provisions of section 194C of the Act were clearly attracted
and since the tax at source was not deduted by the assessee, he, therefore,
disallowed the said amount of Rs.1,44,78,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the
Act. Without prejudice, he disallowed 20% of the same, as excessive and
unreasonable. However, since the entire expenditure was disallowed under
section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, hence, no separate disallowance of 20% of
Rs.1,44,78,000/- was made.
In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO.

17.    Before us, the ld. AR has contended on behalf of the assessee that the
assessee entered into an agreement with Victor Gaskets India Limited for
sharing of common market expenses. As per the agreement the expenses were
incurred by Victor Gaskets India Limited. The assessee had reimbursed the
expenses on the basis of debit notes received from Victor Gaskets India
Limited at the rate of 60 % of the total expenses. It has been further contended
that although the assessee's representative admitted before the CIT(A) that the
                                       12                               ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



assessee should have deducted tax at source of such payment, however it is a
fact that payments made to Victor Gaskets was actual reimbursement of
expenses without any mark-up and therefore, the such reimbursement was not
in the nature of income. Therefore, no tax was required to be deducted on such
reimbursement of expenses. Without prejudice to the above, it has been further
submitted that since Victor Gaskets India Limited has filed its return of
income, such reimbursement of marketing expenses in its return of income for
the AY 2009-10 and paid the taxes on such returned income, no disallowance
can be made as per 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax Act. It
has been further contended that the said expenses had been incurred wholly
and exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore, the same should be
allowed entirely. Even the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance of identical
expenses in the earlier assessment year- AY 2008-09, which has been further
confirmed by the ITAT by rejecting the Department's appeal ITA No.
2350/M/2012.

18.   We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. We find
that the copy of the service agreement of the assessee with Victor Gaskets
India Ltd. has been placed on paper book file at page No.104. We have
perused the said agreement. We find that the assessee has entered into a
specific agreement of service with VGIL and it has been agreed that the VGIL
will provide to the assessee the marketing services all over India besides that it
will handle mechanic service/sale promotion/Van campaign etc. activities on
behalf of the assessee. It may be noted that whereas VGIL is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of gaskets and whereas the assessee is engaged in
manufacture and sale of pastern rings, semi finished castings and lapping
sleeves. The said VGIL had agreed to provide the services as detailed above to
the assessee and besides that it had been engaged in promotion of its own
                                      13                               ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                               M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



products also. As per the agreement, the assessee has been made liable to pay
60% of the expenses incurred by the VGIL in market/promotion of the
products. It is not a case of reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the
VGIL on behalf of the assessee. Whereas it is a case of composite agreement
as per which the assessee has been made liable to pay 60% of the total and
expenses incurred by the VGIL for marketing of its own products and that of
assessee, which means that the assessee has been paying service charges to the
VGIL who has been providing marketing services to the assessee. Further, it
has been specifically provided in clause 8 of the agreement that the VGIL shall
at all times be an independent contractor and nothing contained in the
agreement shall in any way imply employer-employee relationship, principal-
agent relationship or a commercial-agent relationship. These clauses in the
agreement prove beyond doubt that the VGIL has been providing the services
to the assessee as an independent contractor. Hence, the assessee was liable to
deduct tax at source as per the provisions of chapter XVII-B of the Act and
therefore disallowance was attracted in this case under section 40(a)(ia) of the
Act.

19. The next contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee has been that a new
proviso has been inserted in section 40(a)(ia) vide Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f.
01.04.13 wherein it has been provided that if the assessee fails to deduct TDS
in respect of any payment to which the TDS provisions apply but he is not
deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act, which
provides that if the payee of the such amount computed the same into his
income tax return and has paid the due taxes, then such an assessee will not be
deemed to be an assessee in default. The relevant provisions of section 40
(a)(ia) including the newly inserted proviso, for the sake of convenience are
reproduced as under:
                                             14                                    ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                           M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.




      "Amounts not deductible:
      40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 64, the following
      amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the
      head "Profits and gains of business or profession",--
       (a)...................
      (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, 67[rent, royalty,] fees for professional
      services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to
      a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including
      supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source
      under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction,
      68[has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of
      section 139 :]
      69[Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any
      subsequent year, or has been deducted during the previous year but paid after the
      due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a
      deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been
      paid :]
      70[Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of
      the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is
      not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of
      section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the
      assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of
      return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said
      proviso.]....................."
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "70. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013."

Section 201 of the Act being also relevant is reproduced as under:

      "Consequences of failure to deduct or pay:
      201. (1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,--
      (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this
      Act; or
      (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being an employer,
      does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or
      any part of the tax, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall,
      without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be
      an assessee in default in respect of such tax:
      21[Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails
      to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this
      Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a
      resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if
      such resident--
      (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139;
                                               15                                     ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                              M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



      (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of
      income; and
      (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income,
      and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form
      as may be prescribed]..........................."
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "21. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-7-2012"
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


20.   The Ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon various case laws to
press the point that the newly inserted proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is in fact
clarificatory in nature and should be applied/retrospectively.

20.1 On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has contended that it has been
specifically provided in the Act that the said proviso comes into operation
w.e.f. 01.04.13 and that where the language of the section as well as the date of
operation of such provisions has been mentioned specifically the courts cannot
supply words to the provisions or amend the provisions to give it a different
meaning and further that the newly inserted proviso under such circumstances
is prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.13 and cannot be applied
retrospectively.

21.   The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought to our notice that the issue
relating to operation of the newly inserted proviso whether prospective or
retrospective in nature has already been considered and decided by the co-
ordinate Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of "Shri S.M. Anand Vs.
ACIT" in ITA No.183/Bang./13 for A.Y. 2005-06 vide order dated 21.02.14.
The relevant part of the findings of the Tribunal given in the said case, are
reproduced as under:
      "3.4.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered
      the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not deducted tax at source on
      the payments made to Sri G.Shankar of Rs.2,69,21,500 and to Sri Ramesh Kotian of
      Rs.1,54,75,000. As pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative as far as
                                             16                                   ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                          M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



      the payments made to the aforesaid two persons is concerned the fact that the said
      payees / recipients have shown the said amounts in their respective books of
      account and profit and loss accounts and also that the same has been offered to tax
      in their returns of income is not controverted by the authorities below. In our
      considered opinion, since the payees / recipients i.e. G. Ramesh and Ramesh Kotian
      have already shown these amounts in their respective books of account audited
      under section 44AB of the Act; declared and offered the same to tax in their returns
      of income for the relevant period, thus by virtue of the amendment to the
      provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by insertion of the second proviso to
      section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. ;1.4.2013, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the
      Act would not be attracted to the payments made by the assessee i.e. Sri G.
      Shankar of Rs.2,69,21,500 and to Sri Ramesh Kotian of Rs.1,54,75,000. This view of
      ours, is in accordance with the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in
      the case of Ananda Markala (supra) wherein it was held that the insertion of the
      second proviso to section 40(a)(1a) of the Act should be read retrospectively from
      1.4.2005 and not prospectively from 1.4.2013. In this view of the matter, the
      provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not attracted to the payments made by
      the assessee to Sri G.Shankar of Rs.2,69,21,500 and to Sri Ramesh Kotian of
      Rs.1,54,75,000 since the object of introduction of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is
      achieved for the reason that the payees / recipients have declared and offered to
      tax the payments received from the assessee in their respective hands.

      3.4.2 As regards the issue of non-furnishing of Form No.26A, we are of the view
      that since the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is held to be
      retrospective in operation w.e.f. 1.4.2005, similarly, Form 26A was to be filed for an
      assessee not to be held as an assessees in default as per proviso to section 201 of
      the Act. In all fairness, the assessee in the period under consideration i.e.
      Assessment Year 205-06 could not have contemplated that such a compliance was
      to be made and therefore in the interest of equity and justice we set aside the
      order of the learned CIT (Appeals) and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing
      Officer directing the Assessing Officer to consider the allowance or otherwise of the
      expenditure claimed amounting to Rs.4,23,96,500; being the payments made by
      the assessee to Sri G. Shankar of Rs.2,69,21,500 and to Sri Ramesh Kotiar, of
      Rs.1,54,75,000 after affording the assessee adequate opportunity to file Form
      No.26A and only after due verification of whether the aforesaid two payees /
      recipients have reflected the same receipts in their books of account and have
      offered the some to tax. In these circumstances, we hereby set aside the order of
      the learned CIT (Appeals) to the file of the Assessing Officer only for the limited
      purpose as directed above."




22.   We agree with the above finding of the co-ordinate bench of the
Tribunal and respectfully following the same, we hold that disallowance under
section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not be attracted, if the respective payee has
paid the required taxes in accordance with law. For verification of the actual
                                              17                              ITA No.7241/M/201
                                                                      M/s. Perfect Circle India Ltd.



position, we restore this issue to the file of the AO to verify whether the VGIL
had paid the due taxes after computation of its income including the payments
received from the assessee. This issue is accordingly allowed for statistical
purposes.

23.      So far the issue relating to the adhoc disallowance @20% of the
expenses is concerned, we do not find any justification for the same on the part
of the lower authorities. We hold that if the claim of the assessee, otherwise
will be found to be eligible for deduction in view of our findings given above
relating to the alternate contention of the assessee, then no disallowance will be
called for on adhoc basis.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly
allowed.

                  Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2015.



         Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
    (R.C. Sharma)                                            (Sanjay Garg)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                        JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 27.03.2015.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.



Copy to: The Appellant
        The Respondent
        The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
        The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
        The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//                             [




                                                   By Order



                                 Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Experience

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions