KODAK INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT (TDS) - 2(1), MUMBAI

MA 92/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5626 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

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. VS. DCIT (TDS) 2(1) 3 RD FLOOR, KALPATARU SYNERGY VAKOLA, SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI 400055 ROOM NO. 702, SMT. K.G. MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BLDG 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 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AROSE OUT OF ITA NO. 568/MUM/2011 ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 21 ST JANUARY, 2015. 2. THROUGH THIS MA IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED A.R . OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTIBILIT Y 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 FI ND 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 DED UCTED 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 TRI BUNAL 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 MAG NETIC PVT. LTD. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE O N THE AMOUNT SO PAID. WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THIS PART OF TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. MA NO. 92/MUM/2016 M/S. KODAK INDIA PVT. LTD. 2 3. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED A.R. THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAS WRONGLY DECIDED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTIBIL ITY OF TAX AT SOURCE ON REIMBURSEMENT TO CUSTOMS HOUSE AGENTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES. 3.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED F OR 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 T RIBUNAL. 4. AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE MA WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS US TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREI N DETAILED FINDINGS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE MA TERIAL PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. UNDER SECTION 254(2) THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY EMPOWERED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECO RD. HOWEVER, ON THE DEBATABLE ISSUE OR THE ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES WRONG A RGUMENTS CANNOT BE TAKEN CARE OF UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28 TH 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.