Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8047 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 2 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-02-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
K
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
23-12-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7396/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited (Formerly known as SABMiller India Limited) Unit No.301-302, Third Floor, Dynasty Business Park B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11(1)(2) Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAICS2238R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan R. Vora / Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue by Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of Hearing 10/02/2022 Date of Pronouncement 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.7396/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 25/10/2018 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions ITA Nos. 7396/Mum/2018 M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited 2 of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (West Zone) (DRP in short) u/s.144C(1) of the Act dated 18/09/2018 respectively for the A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Ground Nos.2-2.1 and 3 – 3.5 raised by the assessee for A.Y.2014- 15 are identical with Ground Nos.3-3.4 raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and the decision rendered hereinabove for A.Y.2012-13 shall apply with equal force for this assessment year also except with variance in figures. 3. The Ground Nos.4.1-4.4 raised by the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 are identical to Ground No.4- 4.4 raised for A.Y.2012-13 and the decision rendered for A.Y.2012-13 shall apply with equal force for this assessment year also except with variance in figures. 4. The Ground Nos. 5.1 to 5.4 raised by the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 are identical to Ground Nos. 6- 6.4 raised by the assessee for A.Y.2012-13 and the decision rendered there on would apply with equal force for this assessment year also except with variance in figures. 5. The Ground Nos. 6.1 – 6.4 raised by the assessee are challenging the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.1,04,44,122/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO asked the assessee to submit details of tax deducted in respect of the commission paid to agents. In this regard, the assessee submitted a party-wise list of commission paid to the agents amounting to Rs 39,02,11,468/- along with copies of TDS certificates and sample Form I6A issued to substantiate that appropriate ITA Nos. 7396/Mum/2018 M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited 3 taxes have been deducted by the assessee during the year under consideration. Further, the assessee submitted that the total amount of Rs.39,02,11,468/- recorded in the profit and loss account for the year comprises of commission of Rs.37,97,67,346/- for the year and the balance amount comprises of year end accrual of Rs.31,20,024/- on account of commission liability towards unidentified parties and Rs.73,24,098/- on account of disputed commission. 6. Though assessee had filed additional evidences before the ld. DRP by stating that the entire provision amounting to Rs. 1,04,44,122/- has been reversed by the assessee during the F.Y.2016-17 and the provision has been utilized for certain expenses in the nature and distributor leakage claims, sedimentation claims and transit breakage claims. The assessee also submitted that it had duly deducted applicable taxes on the expenditure in the year in which these provisions were actually utilized and had deposited the TDS to the account of the Central Government. These facts were not appreciated by the lower authorities. Hence, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law and also in the light of additional evidences furnished by the assessee. The ld. AO should ensure that there is no double taxation in this regard. If a particular sum has been already reversed by the assessee in the subsequent assessment year then, disallowing the same sum in the year under consideration would result in double taxation. This aspect has to be looked into by the ld. AO while dealing with this issue in the set aside proceedings. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 6.1 – 6.4 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 7396/Mum/2018 M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited 4 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.7396/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24/02/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 24/ 02 /2022 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
