Mahendra Kumar Sharma , Jaipur vs Assessee on 30 October, 2015
(5) CIT Vs. Hardarshan Singh (2013) 350 ITR 427.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.80 seconds)Documents citing
Cit, New Delhi vs Shri Hardarshan Singh on 24 March, 2014
Madhu Mehta, Mumbai vs Assessee on 11 April, 2016
11. The Tribunal in the orders has held that the bills, subject matter of
the dispute were for reimbursement of the air freight charges paid to
airlines. Air freight charges would not include commission, handling or
other charges, which were payable for the services rendered by the
clearing and forwarding agents. For the said services, separate bills were
issued and tax at source was deducted under Section 194C. It is not the
case of the Revenue that TDS had to be deducted on air freight paid to
airlines. The payment towards air freight was required for exporting the
goods as the respondent assessee was an exporter and the consignor.
Delhi High Court in CIT v. Hardarshan Singh [2013] 350 ITR 427/216
Taxman 283/30 taxmann.com 245, has held that on applying principle of
privity of contract, mere reimbursement of charges would not require
deduction of taxes at source.
Jaguar Enterprises, New Delhi vs Assessee on 3 July, 2014
The same view has been reiterated in CIT VS. Hardarshan
Singh (2013) 350 ITR 427 (Delhi). Reverting to the facts of the
instant case, we find that in so far as the payment of godown
rent is concerned, the assessee merely acted as an intermediary
between its customers, being the ultimate importers on one hand
and the godown owners on the other. If we peruse the invoices
raised by Container Corporation of India for the charge of godown
13
ITA No.1815/Del/2014
rent, it can be seen that the assessee nowhere figures in them
inasmuch as only the name of importers are depicted on them.
M/S Setis Carriers, , Kanpur vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 December, 2014
6. Regarding the second aspect i.e. disallowance of Rs.22,69,756/- on the
basis that no TDS was deducted by the assessee, we find that the judgment of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Hardarshan Singh (supra)
supports the case of the assessee. In that case also, the assessee was
engaged in lorry booking business. In that case also, the assessee was
collecting freight charges from clients who intended to transport their goods
through separate transporters and the assessee was paying to transporters
entire amount collected from clients after deducting his commission. Under
these facts, it was held that there is no privity of contract of carriage of goods
between assessee and his clients and therefore, the assessee was only
facilitator and therefore, not required to deduct TDS u./s 194C of the Act. The
facts in the present case are similar, if not identical, and hence, respectfully
following this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we hold that the assessee
in the present case was not required to deduct TDS and therefore, disallowance
made by Assessing Officer in respect of payment of Rs.22,69,756/- is not
proper and the same was rightly deleted by CIT(A). In view of above
discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on both the
issues.
Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 December, 2015
200 & 201/Del/2013
fact that the assessee only gained advantage of a sum of
Rs.22,37,127/- paid to him after tax deduction at source by the payee;
that the coordinate bench in the assessee's own case In ITA No.
5672/Del/2010 for AY 2007-08, has categorically held that the
carriers/transporters engaged by the assessee to carry out the
transportation work of M/s Jay Prakash Associates are not sub-
contractors by applying the ratio of the order passed by ITAT,
Visakhapatnam Bench, in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation
Vs. ACIT, 124 TTJ 970; that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in
the case of CIT Vs. Hardarshan Singh, 350 ITR 427, decided the
identical issues. The operative para of the judgment is as under:
Rajeshwaree Shipping & Logistics, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 May, 2016
6. CIT v/s Hardarshan Singh, ITA no.604/2012, DATED 9.1.2013
(Del.);
1