9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 874 - AT - Income TaxAssessee in default - TDS u/s 194H - Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in holding that the relationship between the assessee-company and its distributor is that of principal agency relationship and consequently the discount paid to the distributors constitute commission payment exigible for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Held that - Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) has followed the binding decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 691 - KERALA HIGH COURT in deciding the issue against the assessee. - Calcutta High Court has also taken the view that the discount given to the distributors of pre-paid cards constitutes commission payment in the assessee's own case reported in Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Now Bharti Airtel Ltd) v. Asst. CIT 2011 (5) TMI 590 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has noticed that the hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also taken identical view on this issue in the case of Idea Cellular 2010 (2) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT . - Decided against assessee.
Issues involved:
Whether the relationship between the assessee-company and its distributor constitutes a "principal agency" relationship, and if the discount paid to the distributors constitutes "commission payment" exigible for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin involved four appeals by the assessee against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi, relating to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The main issue in question was whether the relationship between the assessee-company and its distributor should be classified as a "principal agency" relationship, and if the discount paid to the distributors should be considered as "commission payment" subject to tax deduction at source under section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case revealed that the assessee, a cellular operator under the brand name "AIRTEL," appointed distributors for the sale of SIM cards and pre-paid coupons. The dispute arose regarding whether the difference between the face value of prepaid cards and their selling price constituted a "discount" or "commission," with tax implications under section 194H of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the difference between the face value of the pre-paid card and the selling rate constituted commission, leading to a demand for tax deduction at source under section 194H. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing a judgment by the jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in a similar case involving Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant material, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal also noted that other High Courts, such as the Calcutta High Court and Delhi High Court, had taken a similar view on the issue. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, affirming the decision that the discount given to distributors of pre-paid cards constituted commission payment, as per the provisions of section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of following binding decisions of the High Courts in determining tax implications related to transactions between companies and distributors, specifically regarding the characterization of discounts as commission payments under section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
