Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16274.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 238 Views


The Tax Publishers Holcim Services South Asia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 2357/Mum/2014, dt. 2-2-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1457 (Mum-Trib) Retrospective application causing impossibility of performance - whether disallowance required *Facts:* Assessee had to pay some training fees to its Swiss parent. TDS was done on those where the training was utilized for Indian operations. On those which were rendered outside India and not used for Indian operations such as executive training no TDS was done on ground that the same was rendered outside India and not put to use in Indian operations. Assessing officer disallowed the expense for want of TDS and same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, plea of the assessee was that the retrospective amendment in section 9(1) wref 1-4-1976 vide finance act, 2010 post Ishikawajima Harima Heavy industries case 288 ITR 408 did not exist when payouts happened during the relevant assessment year. The same being thus hit by doctrine of impossibility of performance: Held in favour of the assessee that no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted as assessee could have not foreseen the amendment. Was hit by the impossibility of performance doctrine.

The Tax Publishers

Holcim Services South Asia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 2357/Mum/2014, dt. 2-2-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1457 (Mum-Trib)

Retrospective application causing impossibility of performance - whether disallowance required

Facts:

Assessee had to pay some training fees to its Swiss parent. TDS was done on those where the training was utilized for Indian operations. On those which were rendered outside India and not used for Indian operations such as executive training no TDS was done on ground that the same was rendered outside India and not put to use in Indian operations. Assessing officer disallowed the expense for want of TDS and same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, plea of the assessee was that the retrospective amendment in section 9(1) wref 1-4-1976 vide finance act, 2010 post Ishikawajima Harima Heavy industries case 288 ITR 408 did not exist when payouts happened during the relevant assessment year. The same being thus hit by doctrine of impossibility of performance:

Held in favour of the assessee that no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted as assessee could have not foreseen the amendment. Was hit by the impossibility of performance doctrine.