Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: itd cementation in Acit, Cir-2, Tds, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Itd Cementation India Ltd., Kolkata on 22 November, 2017Matching Fragments
This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) - 24, dated 31.12.2015
2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of construction of infrastructural projects such as port, tunnels, roads and bridges etc. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee in order to verify the compliance of TDS provision. It was found that the assessee during the F.Y. 2011-12 had made payment of Rs. 11,46,13,000/- to various banks on account of Bank Guarantee Commission without making deduction tax at source. In this regard, reliance was placed by I.T.A. No. 441/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd.
3. Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submission made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the Ld. CIT (A) directed the A.O. to delete the demand raised vide an order I.T.A. No. 441/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd.
The order of the Tribunal is therefore very clear that the bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of "commission" as it is understood in common business parlance as well as in the context of section 194H. From the above it is clear that bank guarantee commission is not what has been envisaged under "commission" and "brokerage" as covered u/s 194H.
4I.T.A. No. 441/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd.
5. In my view the issue is covered by the above decision of CIT(A) - 1, Kolkata. There are no special facts in this year which may lead me to a different conclusion. I, therefore, follow the above decision and allow the grounds."
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the demand raised by the A.O. u/s 201(1)/201(1A) was deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) vide his impugned order by relying on the decision of his predecessor in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 wherein similar relief was allowed by the Ld. CIT (A) after taking into consideration Notification No. 56/2012 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal by its order dated 05.05.2017 passed in ITA No. 812/Kol/2014 has already upheld the order of the Ld. CIT (A) deleting the similar demand raised by the A.O. vide its order passed I.T.A. No. 441/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd.