Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16221.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 232 Views


The Tax Publishers Dy. CIT v. Mahanagar Gas Ltd. [ITA No. 1945 (Mum) of 2013, dt. 15-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2064 (Mum-Trib) TDS applicability on reimbursement of secondment charges *Facts:* Assessee had some employees of British Gas and GAIL seconded to them. Payments were made by the assessee to GAIL/British Gas for the second employees on cost to cost basis. No TDS was done on the same. The assessing officer read it in default of section 40a(ia) and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the said expense. On further appeal: Held in favour of the assessee that the expenses were reimbursements to British Gas/GAIL on cost to cost. The actual employer was British Gas/GAIL who had agreed to pay the TDS on behalf of the employees and factually done. Assessee cannot be called to discharge the said obligation on the same payout once again. CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 333 (Bom) applied. IDS Software Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) (2009) 122 TTJ 410 (Bang) applied. *Note:* It is this decision which was recently upheld by the Supreme court discussed in Flash mailer 155 CIT v. M/s Kotak Securities/Civil Appeal No. 3143 OF 2016/Supreme court/Dated 29-3-2016

The Tax Publishers

Dy. CIT v. Mahanagar Gas Ltd. [ITA No. 1945 (Mum) of 2013, dt. 15-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2064 (Mum-Trib)

TDS applicability on reimbursement of secondment charges

Facts:

Assessee had some employees of British Gas and GAIL seconded to them. Payments were made by the assessee to GAIL/British Gas for the second employees on cost to cost basis. No TDS was done on the same. The assessing officer read it in default of section 40a(ia) and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the said expense. On further appeal:

Held in favour of the assessee that the expenses were reimbursements to British Gas/GAIL on cost to cost. The actual employer was British Gas/GAIL who had agreed to pay the TDS on behalf of the employees and factually done. Assessee cannot be called to discharge the said obligation on the same payout once again.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 333 (Bom) applied.

IDS Software Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) (2009) 122 TTJ 410 (Bang) applied.

Note: It is this decision which was recently upheld by the Supreme court discussed in Flash mailer 155 CIT v. M/s Kotak Securities/Civil Appeal No. 3143 OF 2016/Supreme court/Dated 29-3-2016