9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of CIT(A) upholding non-deduction of TDS under section 194B in 'Tata Sumo Lucky Draw' scheme. Analysis: The appeal challenged an order upholding non-deduction of TDS under section 194B in a 'Tata Sumo Lucky Draw' scheme. The Assessing Officer raised a demand on the assessee for not deducting TDS, treating them as defaulters. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, considering the scheme as a lottery based on Circular No. 264 issued by CBDT. The appellant argued that it was a business promotion scheme, not a lottery, as it resulted in a net loss after deducting the prize money. The appellant's representative contended that section 194B applies to lottery schemes involving gambling, not business promotions. However, the Departmental Representative argued that section 194B applies to any scheme involving winnings exceeding a certain amount, without exemption for business promotions. The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of section 194B and Circular No. 264. The section mandates TDS deduction for any income from lottery winnings. The Circular clarified that prizes from 'lucky dip draws' are considered lotteries under section 194B. The Tribunal emphasized that the responsibility to deduct TDS lies with the scheme organizer, irrespective of the scheme's purpose. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that section 194B only applies to gambling-related schemes, highlighting the accountability aspect of TDS provisions. The Tribunal applied judicial precedents to determine if the 'Tata Sumo Lucky Draw' scheme qualified as a lottery. The scheme involved chance-based winnings, required participant contributions, and lacked personal skill elements. The Tribunal found that the scheme met the criteria for a lottery, dismissing the appellant's argument of incurring losses as irrelevant. The Tribunal also refuted reliance on a specific judgment cited out of context, emphasizing the holistic interpretation of legal decisions. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, affirming that the appellant was liable for TDS in the lottery scheme. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the demand raised on the appellant.
|
