Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Kodak India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit (Tds) - 2(1), Mumbai on 28 April, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"I" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member
and Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member
MA No. 92/Mum/2016
(Arising out of ITA No. 568/Mum/2011)
(Assessment Year: 2009-10)
M/s. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. DCIT (TDS) - 2(1)
3rd Floor, Kalpataru Synergy Room No. 702, Smt. K.G.
Vs.
Vakola, Santacruz (E) Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg
Mumbai 400055 Charni Road, Mumbai 400002
PAN - AAACK2172J
Applicant Respondent
Applicant by: Shri Jitendra Jain
Respondent by: Shri Jeevan Lal
Date of Hearing: 14.10.2016
Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2017
ORDER
Per R.C. Sharma, A.M.
This Miscellaneous Application arose out of ITA No. 568/Mum/2011 order of Tribunal dated 21st January, 2015.
2. Through this MA it was contended by the learned A.R. of the assessee that the issue with regard to deductibility of tax at source on payment made for supply of cameras manufactured by Hical Magnetic Pvt. Ltd. was not correctly dealt with by the Tribunal.
2.1 We have considered the rival contentions and find that after giving detailed finding at paras 14 to19 of its order, the Tribunal has reached a conclusion that tax at source is required to be deducted on a portion of the amount paid out to Hical Magnetics Pvt. Ltd. It is clear from the order of the Tribunal that after giving detailed finding the Tribunal has reached the conclusion that on an amount of `88 per camera out of a total cost of `168.77 per camera pertains to work contract with Hical Magnetic Pvt. Ltd. Therefore the assessee was required to deduct tax at source on the amount so paid. We do not find any apparent mistake in this part of the order of the Tribunal.
2 MA No. 92/Mum/2016M/s. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd.
3. It was further contended by the learned A.R. that the Tribunal has wrongly decided the issue with regard to deductibility of tax at source on reimbursement to Customs House Agents in respect of certain expenses.
3.1 We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has directed for deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to Customs House Agents in respect of certain expenses after giving detailed findings at para 24. We do not find any apparent mistake in this part of the order of the Tribunal.
4. After carefully going through the entire MA we find that the assessee wants us to recall the order of the Tribunal wherein detailed findings has been given by the Tribunal after considering the material placed on record during the course of hearing. Under section 254(2) the Tribunal is only empowered to rectify the mistake apparent from record. However, on the debatable issue or the issue which requires wrong arguments cannot be taken care of under section 254(2) of the Act.
5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Saktijit Dey) (R.C. Sharma)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai, Dated: 28th April, 2017
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) concerned
4. The CIT concerned
5. The DR, "I" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.