Tds on interpretation charges
This query is : Resolved
23 February 2013
We are paying interepreation charges to interpretors hired. These interpretors are actually employees of company but not on payroll.
The interpreation charges are in nature of professional charges.
Along with above we are paying the conveyance charges.
Now take e.g.
1. Interpretation charges- Rs. 35000
2. Conveyance charges- Rs 5000
In above e.g. we are deducting TDS on 35000 only but no TDS on conveyance.
Please clarify that are we facing correct accounting policy.
The interpreation charges are in nature of professional charges.
Along with above we are paying the conveyance charges.
Now take e.g.
1. Interpretation charges- Rs. 35000
2. Conveyance charges- Rs 5000
In above e.g. we are deducting TDS on 35000 only but no TDS on conveyance.
Please clarify that are we facing correct accounting policy.
23 February 2013
Hi,
TDs is also to be deducted on conveyance charges too.
Thanks!!
TDs is also to be deducted on conveyance charges too.
Thanks!!
23 February 2013
Agreed. TDS is to be Deducted on Both.
But No Tds on reimbursement, is Invoice raised Separately.
But No Tds on reimbursement, is Invoice raised Separately.
23 February 2013
the TDS is deductible on both the payments under 194J.
the language of both 194C and 194J includes the word "any sum" which shall include reimbursements.
the language of both 194C and 194J includes the word "any sum" which shall include reimbursements.
25 February 2013
Dear Nikhil,
Pls Go Through This Case law.
Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO
Date of pronouncing the order: June 19, 2012
Kolkata Bench
If You Need Further Clearance, Then Let me Know.
Though They have Used Word "Any Sum paid"..
For That raise Separate Bill, NO TDS Applies.
Regards,
CA Ayush Agrawal
Pls Go Through This Case law.
Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO
Date of pronouncing the order: June 19, 2012
Kolkata Bench
If You Need Further Clearance, Then Let me Know.
Though They have Used Word "Any Sum paid"..
For That raise Separate Bill, NO TDS Applies.
Regards,
CA Ayush Agrawal
Message likes :
1 times
25 February 2013
For Further Clarification:-
The Board has through Circular No.715 dated August 8,1995 clarified that since Section 194J refers to "any sum paid", reimbursement of actual expenses cannot be deducted from the bill and that such reimbursement will also have to be taken into account in deducting tax at source.
However, the issue of whether tax deduction will be attracted where such expenses are claimed through a separate statement stands unclarified by the Board
It is felt that if the expenses are claimed through a separate statement there will be no requirement to deduct tax at source, provided the deductor is satisfied that the expenses claimed as reimbursement are only the actual expenses incurred. If there is an element of profit, that is to say that if the reimbursement is not of actual expenses, tax will have to be deducted at source even if the expenses are claimed through a separate statement.
The Board has through Circular No.715 dated August 8,1995 clarified that since Section 194J refers to "any sum paid", reimbursement of actual expenses cannot be deducted from the bill and that such reimbursement will also have to be taken into account in deducting tax at source.
However, the issue of whether tax deduction will be attracted where such expenses are claimed through a separate statement stands unclarified by the Board
It is felt that if the expenses are claimed through a separate statement there will be no requirement to deduct tax at source, provided the deductor is satisfied that the expenses claimed as reimbursement are only the actual expenses incurred. If there is an element of profit, that is to say that if the reimbursement is not of actual expenses, tax will have to be deducted at source even if the expenses are claimed through a separate statement.
25 February 2013
Dear Ayush,
I referred to the case law mentioned by you. Unfortunately, the judgment is on the issue whether the said expense/reimbursement is allowed under 40(a)(ia)
Unfortunately, that has no bearing on the applicability of TDS provisions.
Rather I quote from the very same judgment when the learned bench opined that "the hon'ble court, in ratio, stating that where an expenditure is subject to deduction of tax at source, violation thereof would justify disallowance of the relevant expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We opine accordingly."
Further to your clarification, I would still prefer giving clients a conservative advice. No point in wasting time on litigation upto ITAT level for such trite issues.
Further you didn't mention the last line of your clarification "THIS POSTITION HAS TO BE TESTED"
I referred to the case law mentioned by you. Unfortunately, the judgment is on the issue whether the said expense/reimbursement is allowed under 40(a)(ia)
Unfortunately, that has no bearing on the applicability of TDS provisions.
Rather I quote from the very same judgment when the learned bench opined that "the hon'ble court, in ratio, stating that where an expenditure is subject to deduction of tax at source, violation thereof would justify disallowance of the relevant expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We opine accordingly."
Further to your clarification, I would still prefer giving clients a conservative advice. No point in wasting time on litigation upto ITAT level for such trite issues.
Further you didn't mention the last line of your clarification "THIS POSTITION HAS TO BE TESTED"
25 February 2013
Yeah, That case for Allowances 40(a)ia...
But Directly Linked with the TDS Issue Only..
as You Know 40 a ia section for what ?
and if you want direct case law then here :-
In this regard, a reference may also be made to the judgement of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the
case of ITO Vs. Dr.Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd. [2005] 95 TTJ 53 (Del). One of the issues before
the Hon. ITAT in the above case was TDS in respect of reimbursement of expenses where the
consultant had raised a separate bill for such expenses. In this case, as per agreement between the
assessee company and M/s.Indochem Techno Consultants Ltd, a vehicle was to be provided by the
assessee company to the said consultant for attending to its work and thus, the assessee company was to bear the vehicle expenses actually incurred by the said party. Bills for such expenses incurred by
the said consultant were separately raised on the assessee company, in addition to bills for fees payable
on account of technical services.
It was held by the Hon. Tribunal that since the amount of bills so raised was towards the actual
expenses incurred by the consultant, there was no element of any profit involved in the said bills. It
was, thus, a clear case of reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the consultant and the same,
therefore, was not of the nature of payment covered by section 194J, requiring the assessee to deduct
tax at source therefrom.
But Directly Linked with the TDS Issue Only..
as You Know 40 a ia section for what ?
and if you want direct case law then here :-
In this regard, a reference may also be made to the judgement of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the
case of ITO Vs. Dr.Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd. [2005] 95 TTJ 53 (Del). One of the issues before
the Hon. ITAT in the above case was TDS in respect of reimbursement of expenses where the
consultant had raised a separate bill for such expenses. In this case, as per agreement between the
assessee company and M/s.Indochem Techno Consultants Ltd, a vehicle was to be provided by the
assessee company to the said consultant for attending to its work and thus, the assessee company was to bear the vehicle expenses actually incurred by the said party. Bills for such expenses incurred by
the said consultant were separately raised on the assessee company, in addition to bills for fees payable
on account of technical services.
It was held by the Hon. Tribunal that since the amount of bills so raised was towards the actual
expenses incurred by the consultant, there was no element of any profit involved in the said bills. It
was, thus, a clear case of reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the consultant and the same,
therefore, was not of the nature of payment covered by section 194J, requiring the assessee to deduct
tax at source therefrom.
25 February 2013
I agree to all the judgments u have quoted, but as a tax con, I prefer not to give an opinion to my clients which is prone to litigation.
Often the cost of litigation is more than the cost of TDS.
Often the cost of litigation is more than the cost of TDS.
Message likes :
1 times
25 February 2013
I agree to all the judgments u have quoted, but as a tax con, I prefer not to give an opinion to my clients which is prone to litigation.
Often the cost of litigation is more than the cost of TDS.
Often the cost of litigation is more than the cost of TDS.
Message likes :
1 times
26 February 2013
Dear Nikhil,
I Have Some Practical Cases.
Import of Goods is There.
In That C&F we are Paying Say 100000/- rs. Then In That More Than 80000 Rs. is reimbursement.
In This Case Amount of Reimbursement is Quite High. and Its a Single Transaction.
Predict for Whole Year transaction.
Often Cost of Litigation is More than Cost of TDS - But That is True...
Well, Thanks for All Your Participation in This Query. Enjoyed Discussion.
Regards,
CA Ayush Agrawal
I Have Some Practical Cases.
Import of Goods is There.
In That C&F we are Paying Say 100000/- rs. Then In That More Than 80000 Rs. is reimbursement.
In This Case Amount of Reimbursement is Quite High. and Its a Single Transaction.
Predict for Whole Year transaction.
Often Cost of Litigation is More than Cost of TDS - But That is True...
Well, Thanks for All Your Participation in This Query. Enjoyed Discussion.
Regards,
CA Ayush Agrawal
Message likes :
1 times
26 February 2013
same here...got to read a few good case laws because of you and see even in your case, the TDS on reimbursements (assuming 194J) is Rs 8,000 much less than the cost of litigation..
take care
take care
26 February 2013
Dear Nikhil,
After Reading Your Comment, It made me to Smile.
Cost of Litigation Always Take for One Year.
I Already Told That This is single Bill of entry.
Predict for How Many BoE Can be in One Year.
Say 50 BoE are There in a Year.
8000*50 = Cost Rs. 400000/-.
Now What Says ??
After Reading Your Comment, It made me to Smile.
Cost of Litigation Always Take for One Year.
I Already Told That This is single Bill of entry.
Predict for How Many BoE Can be in One Year.
Say 50 BoE are There in a Year.
8000*50 = Cost Rs. 400000/-.
Now What Says ??
26 February 2013
sorry, i read your message wrong! but remember this is not the cost. this is tax credit which shall anyways be available to you.
litigation cost is a direct expense.
though i do agree that if tax deduction total is too high, going risky is an option worth considering.
but given indian tax landscape, I prefer opting for safer option (specifically in case of domestic TDS) as the credit for TDS is anyways available.
litigation cost is a direct expense.
though i do agree that if tax deduction total is too high, going risky is an option worth considering.
but given indian tax landscape, I prefer opting for safer option (specifically in case of domestic TDS) as the credit for TDS is anyways available.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- HSN Details in IFF/GSTR-1 & in GSTR 9
- Refund of AY 22-23
- Tax on capital gains revoked us 54f
- Should I include march foreign salary received in April in my income for FY 2023-24?
- TDR receipts for agreement holder
- Inventory of finished goods
- Applicability of Ind As to associate of associate
- GST APPLICABILITY ON POLLUTION CHECK SERVICE
- Company Incorporation - CA and directors signing from different states
- Confusion around Form 26QB fields
- MODEL FILLED AUDIT REPORT FOR TRUSTS IN FORM 10B
- 115TD on cancellation of 12A 80G Registration
- MIS MATCH OF INVOICE NUMBER
- How to adjusted advances given or receipt
- Foreign vendor without PAN unable to to register due to non receipt of OTP on foreign number ?
- 133(6) DIN INVALID format error - ->WHERE TO REPLY 133(6) notice?
- Query for dubts
- CASE INTIMATION OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 73(5)(Rule 142(1A)
- Need to correct "Whether it is last installment " response in Form 26 QB
- GSTR3B IMS Deshboard ( Rec. Solution )
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
