DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI V. SUPRIYA S. JOSHI, MUMBAI

ITA 6565/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3554 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M C NANIWADEKAR
• Keywords: Double taxation relief
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NO. 6565/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE DCIT, TOWER NO. 6, 4 TH FLOOR, VASHI RAILWAY STATION BLDG., VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI / VS. MRS. SUPRIYA SUHAS JOSHI , 85/N/SG-23, BEHIND BLDG., NO. 3, PANT NAGAR, GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI-400 075 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.AAIPJ 1596L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.C. NANIWADEKAR / DATE OF HEARING :26.05.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :31.05.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI DATED 28.08.2012 PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENT MADE TO MANPOW ER DEPLOYED OVERSEAS IS IN THE NATURE OF SALARY AND THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 195 OR 192 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO SUCH PAYMENTS. ITA NO. 6565/M/12 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANPO WER RECRUITMENT SERVICES FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30. 9.2009 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 25,02,480/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED U/S. 143(3) ON 22.12.2011 DETERMINING INCOME AT RS. 2,04 ,64,180/-. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DISALLOWED RS. 1,56,73,056/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) BEING THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PERSONS RECRUITED BY HER TREATING S UCH PAYMENTS AS NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALARY. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS SALARY TO THE EMPLOY EES WHO ARE ALL NON-RESIDENTS AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF S EC. 195 HAVE NO APPLICATION FOR THE SALARY PAYMENTS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD SALARI ES TO THE PERSONS RECRUITED ABROAD ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALARIES AND DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SINCE NO TDS WAS MADE AT SOURC E. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWAN CE HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TOWARDS SALA RIES TO HER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ALL NON-RESIDENTS AND THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 195 HAVE NO APPLICATION. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 192 ALSO HAVE NO APPLICATION SINCE THE SALARIES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES ABROAD ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. 5. AGAINST THIS DECISION, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE C. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE SALARIES PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE TO ITS NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEES. REITERATING THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITS THAT ITA NO. 6565/M/12 3 THERE IS NO EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PERSONS RECRUITED ABROAD AND THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE T HE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALARY. H ENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195/192 ARE ATTRACTED AND THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCT ION OF TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 AR E APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE INTEREST OR ANY OTHER SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER PROV ISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT EXCEPT INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIE S. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 ARE VERY CL EAR THAT THE SAME ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS SALA RIES. HE ALSO SUBMITS THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 192 ARE ALSO NOT AT TRACTED SINCE ALL THESE SALARIES WERE PAID TO THE NON-RESIDENT EMPLO YEES AND THEY ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. HE STRONGLY PLACES RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWAN CE MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND PLEADS FOR SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PERSONS RECRUITED ABROAD IS NOT IN THE NATURE O F SALARIES AND APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 R.W. SEC. 40(A)( IA) AND DISALLOWED THE SAME AS NO TDS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO MASTER AND SERVANT RELAT IONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECRUITED PERSONS AND THEREFOR E, THE PAYMENTS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE SALARIES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONS IDERING THE MATERIAL ITA NO. 6565/M/12 4 EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINING THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE RECRUIT ED PERSONS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE PAYMENT S MADE FOR THE RECRUITED PERSONS ABROAD ARE NOTHING BUT SALARIES O NLY AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO SUCH SA LARIES. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER: 3.2. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CITED CASE LAWS IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS UR CHAPHEKAR & ORS (1977) 107 ITR 49(BOM). APPELLANT HAS FILED FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 09.08.20 12 STATING AS UNDER:- I) EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GREATER THE DEGREE OF CONTROL EXERCISED OVER THE PERSON EMPLOYED, CONCLUSION WOULD BE IN FA VOUR OF EMPLOYER / EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP. IN THE CASE OF PERSONS WORKING ON SITES ABROAD OF F OREIGN CLIENTS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT I) THE APPOINTMENT IS BY THE ASSESSEE. II) THE SUPERVISION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THROUGH SUPE RVISOR AND CONSULTANT. III) THE WORKING HOURS, SALARY OVERTIME. LEAVE INCR EMENT, HEALTH / PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE, BOCKING, RESCHEDULING / CANCELLATION OF AIR TICKETS, GIVING ADVANCE IN THE EVENT OF CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER WELFARE MEASURES ARE IMPLE MENTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IV)THE POWER TO SETTLE DISPUTES, TO TERMINATE SERVI CES OF THE EMPLOYEES VESTS WITH ASSESSEE SOLELY. 2) LN ADDITION TO VARIOUS EVIDENCES LAID IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE- STATED CONTENTION OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP , IT IS PROPOSED TO SUBMIT FURTHER EVIDENCE AS UNDER: ITA NO. 6565/M/12 5 I) COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF LABOUR/ OVERS EAS INDIAN AFFAIRS PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE IS CARRIED OUT IS MARKET AS ANNEXURE-I. THE ATTENTION OF LEARN ED CIT(A) IS DRAWN TO CLAUSES OF THE LICENSE. II) THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED TO RECRUIT MAXIMUM 300 W ORKERS FOR 5 YEARS. VI) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT APPOINT SUB AGENTS TO CARRY OUT HER BUSINESS VII) THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY PRESCRIBED STANDARD WA GES VIII) MAINTENANCE OF VARIOUS PARTICULARS EMPLOYEES. THUS THE LICENSE UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D TO CARRY OUT BUSINESS ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE CAN EMPLO Y EMPLOYEES ONLY AND NOT AGENTS. II) THE PERSONS VISITING FOREIGN VISITED ON EMPLOYM ENT OR WORK VISA WHICH IS FOR LONGER DURATION. SPECIMEN OF WORK VISA IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-2. WHEN EMPLOYEE ARRIVES IN FORE IGN COUNTRY, HE IS GIVEN DISEMBARKATION CARD BY DEPARTM ENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE TRAVELED COUNTRY SHOWING PUR POSE OF JOURNEY AS 'EMPLOYMENT' SPECIMEN IS MARKED AS ANNEX URE-3. ANY FOREIGNER IF HE VISITS COUNTRY ON BUSINESS VISA OR TOURIST VISA IS REQUIRED TO LEAVE THAT COUNTRY IN SIX MONTHS. THIS FACT ALSO SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION THAT PERSONS EMPLOYED WHO W ERE GRANTED EMPLOYMENT VISA FOR FIVE YEARS WERE EMPLOYE ES ONLY AND NOT CONSULTANTS OF PROFESSIONALS VISITING FOREIGN C OUNTRY ON SIX MONTHS VISA 3) EMPLOYMENT FOR A FIXED TENURE. THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CAN BE FOR A FIXED TENURE O R FOR THE TENURE OF THE PROJECT. PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED HEREWIT H ANNUAL REPORTS OF SOME OF THE COMPANIES APPOINTING MANAGIN G DIRECTORS FOR FIXED TENURE OF SAY 3-5 YEARS AS ANNE XURE-4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BEING SUBJECT TO OVERALL SUPERVIS ION AND CONTROL OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY. IT IS ITA NO. 6565/M/12 6 NOT NECESSARY THAT EMPLOYMENTSHOULD BE PERPETUAL OR THAT EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ASSURANCE OF JOB ON COMPLE TION OF TENURE. IN SPITE OF ABOVE LEGAL POSITION IT HAS BEE N ENDEAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO COMPLETED THEIR TENURE. SPECIMEN EXAMPLE IS IN CASE OF MR. RAJAN CHATHAM VALLY WHO WAS WORKING ON SAUDI ARABIA SITE FROM 17.05.2008 TO 23.06.2008 WAS EMPLOYED TO WORK ON Q ATAR SITE FROM 25.1 1.2008 TO 24.05.2009 ANNEXURE 5 ' 3.3 ALONG WITH THIS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF AGREEMENT TECHNICAL SERVICE BLANKET CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN T OYO ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF JOINT VENTURE OF TOYO ENGINEERING CORPORATION (TEC, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & RENOVATION ORGANIZATION OF IRAN (IDRO), JGC CORPORATION (JGC) ANI DAELIM INDUSTRIA L CO. LTD. (DIC). HE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF AGREEMENT O F TECHNICAL SERVICE CONTRACT ENTERED BY APPELLANT WITH INDIVIDU ALS DEPLOYED FOR THE JOB ABROAD. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME. A READING OF THE FIRST ONE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT ENT ERED INTO CONTRACT WITH TEC-FIRM ON ONE SIDE, ON BEHALF OF JO INT VENTURE AND THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT THEN ENTERED INTO CONTRACT WITH INDIVIDUALS UPON THE TEC'S REQUEST MADE, GOVERNED B Y THE TECHNICAL SERVICE 'BLANKET CONTRACT' ENTERED INTO T EC AND THE APPELLANT. AS PER THAT, THE INDIVIDUAL TECHNICA L SERVICE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED TO SUPPLY THE MANPOWER TO CARR Y OUT THE PROJECT OF - TEC IN THE JOINT VENTURE. THIS MAKES I T CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS TEC BOTH WERE REQUIRED TO ENTE R INDIVIDUAL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THESE PERSONS WHO ARE TO BE D EPLOYED FOR THE JOB ON THE SITE OF THE PROJECT. THE TECHNICAL S ERVICE CONTRACT BETWEEN APPELLANT AND INDIVIDUAL THEN MAKES IT CLEA R THAT WHAT APPELLANT HAS CONTRACTED IS SERVICES OF THE QUALIFI ED AND SKILLED PERSONNELS AS PER WHICH THEY ARE REQUIRED TO WORK 6 0 HOURS A WEEK FOR 25 MONTHS ON PROVISIONAL BASIS. THIS CONTR ACT ALSO PROVIDES THAT ACCOMMODATION AND MEAL WILL BE FREE O F COST AND THEN SICK LEAVE OF MAXIMUM 12 DAYS IN A YEAR AND HO ME LEAVE FOR 15 DAYS WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM APPELLANT'S SIDE TO THE PERSON. THE CONTRACT ALSO TALKS OF P.A. POLICY AND OTHER INSURA NCES IN INDIA AND WORKING COUNTRY, UNIFORM, SAFETY APPARATUS, AIR TICKET AND AIR FARE AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR VISA AND W ORK PERMIT WHICH ALL ARE TO BE REIMBURSED BY APPELLANT FIRM. IT IS ONLY THE IMPORT TAX, CUSTOM DUTY AND EXCESS BAGGAGE CHARGES ON PERSONAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL BE BORNE BY THE PERSON ENTERING IN TO ITA NO. 6565/M/12 7 THE CONTRACT WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM. IN VIEW OF THESE CLAUSES THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT APPELLANT HAS ENTERED IN TO THE CONTRACT WITH THESE PERSONS WHO ARE DEPLOYED AS MAN POWER OF THE APPELLANT TO THE SITE OF THE PROJECT AS WAS REQUIRE D BY THE BLANKET CONTRACT BETWEEN TEC AND THE APPELLANT RADIANT SERV ICES IS TECHNICAL SERVICE CONTRACT IS GOVERNED BY THE CONTR ACT BETWEEN TEC AND APPELLANT ONLY DEALING WITH ISSUES OF SICK LEAVE, REIMBURSEMENT OF AIR FARE, PA POLICY, VISA DOCUMENT ATION, PROVISIONS FOR BONUS FOR OVERTIME AND MOST IMPORTAN TLY JOB DESCRIPTION TO BE SPECIFIED AT THE JOB SITE AND THE N PROVISION FOR ACCOMMODATION AND MEAL FREE OF COST. THUS, HERE FAC ILITIES OR PERQUISITES WHOSE MONETARY VALUES ALSO IS NOT MEASU RED GO A LONG WAY TO SHOW THAT THE CONTRACT IS OF HIRING SER VICE OF THESE PERSONS WITH FIXED REMUNERATION PER MONTH WHERE NAT URE OF JOB WORK IS ALSO NOT PRE DETERMINED. THIS CAN ONLY BE A CONTRACT OF SERVICE AND WHEN THE SERVICE ITSELF IS NOT SPECIFIE D AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE CONTRACT, IT CAN BE ONLY EMPLOYMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF SOME E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCES WHEREIN TEC HAS COMMUNICATED WITH T HE APPELLANT SAYING THAT A PARTICULAR PERSONS PERFORMA NCE IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND HENCE HE IS NOT REQUIRED THEM ANYM ORE. SIMULTANEOUSLY, TEC HAS ASKED APPELLANT TO ARRANGE ALTERNATIVE PERSON FOR THEM. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED A COP Y OF CERTIFICATE GIVEN TO PROPRIETOR MRS. SUPRIYA S JOSHI CERTIFICAT E U/S10 OF THE IMMIGRATION AT 1983 TO COMMENCE OR CARRY OFF THE BU SINESS OF RECRUITMENT FOR DEPLOYMENT OF INDIAN WORKERS WITH F OREIGN EMPLOYERS. 3.4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME AND NOTED THAT CE RTIFICATE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVT. OF INDI A ALLOWING TO CONTINUE RECRUITMENT FOR 5 YEARS. THIS CERTIFICATE PUTS AN OBLIGATION ON THE APPELLANT NOT TO EMPLOYEE AND SUB -AGENT TO CONDUCT OR CARRY HER BUSINESS AND ALSO MAKES IT MAN DATORY FOR THE HOLDER OF CERTIFICATE TO MAINTAIN SOME PERMANEN T RECORDS AT HER PLACE OF BUSINESS. IT SHOWS THAT POWER OF RECR UITMENT AND DISMISSAL RESTS WITH APPELLANT FIRM ONLY. I HAVE A LSO GONE THROUGH SEC. 195 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 195. (1) ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A NON-RESIDENT, NOT BEING A COMPANY, OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY, ANY INTEREST {***} OR ANY OTHER SUM CHARG EABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (NOT BEING INCOME ITA NO. 6565/M/12 8 CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE O R AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY THE ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER , DEDUCT INCOME-TAX THEREON AT THE RATE IN FORCE: 3.5 SINCE SEC. 195 DOES NOT TAKE SALARY IN ITS PURV IEW APPLICATION OF SEC.195 IN THE CASE IS NOT TENABLE. THE APPELLANT IN THE SUBMISSION HAS MADE AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION A LSO AND I.E. AS ALL THE PERSONS ARE WORKING OUTSIDE INDIA TO WHO M REMUNERATIONS WERE PAID FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE SITUATED OUTSIDE INDIA, NEITHER SECTION 192 NOR SEC TION 195 ARE APPLICABLE AS THE INCOME IS NOT ACCRUING OR ARISING IN INDIA AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 9(1). APPELLANT HAS ALSO S TATED THAT AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF DTAA APPLICABLE IN T HE CASE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE. 3.6. HAVING DECIDED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE WHEN T HE SERVICE IS OBTAINED ON FIXED REMUNERATION BASIS AND CONTROL OF REMOVAL AND RECRUITMENT IS EXERCISED BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CONTRACT IS CONTRACT IN THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD AND HENCE I AM CONVINCED TH AT SEC 195 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MADE AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT THESE ALL PERSONS RECRUITED B Y HER ARE NON RESIDENT INDIANS AND INCOME HAS NOT ACCRUED OR ARIS EN IN INDIA AND THEN UNDER DTAA SCHEME ALSO NO TDS HAS TO BE MA DE IN THEIR CASES FROM THEIR REMUNERATIONS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT T HAT THE REMUNERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT FIRM FOR THE CO NTRACT OF SERVICE BEING IN THE NATURE OF SALARY ONLY, NO TDS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. THE DISALLOWANCES MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) IS DELETED. GROUND NO. 1,2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED. 8. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS THE FINDI NG OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE PERSONS RECRUITED IN ABROAD ARE ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTRACT IS IN THE NATURE OF EMPLO YMENT, THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE ABO VE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED OR REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE WI TH EVIDENCES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED ITA NO. 6565/M/12 9 BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT REMUNERATION PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONTRACT OF SERVICES ARE IN THE NATURE OF SALARY ONLY AND NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S. 195 OF THE ACT. HE NCE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U /S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY , 2016. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED : 31 ST MAY, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI