2015 (7) TMI 1074 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194J or 194H - payment to RCDF cess - Held that - Apropos the payment to RCDF cess it has not been demonstrated by the Department that any managerial services in this connection have been rendered to assessee by RCDF qua this amount. RCDF is an apex cooperative body and cess is paid to it by virtue of federal structure in Rajasthan cooperative set up. Thus as far as assessee s business is concerned there is no rendering of any managerial services by RCDF as alleged by the AO u/s 194H and upheld ld. CIT(A) u/s 194J. Since there is no rendering of any services and the payment is not made for any managerial services to RCDF therefore payment can neither be held as liable for TDS u/s 194H of the Act as commission/ brokerage as held by the AO nor u/s 194J for rendering any managerial services as held by the ld. CIT(A). In view thereof we hold that assesee s impugned payments to RCDF are not liable for TDS Payment for milk price difference the assessee society does not purchase milk from cattle owners as mistakenly held by ld. AO. Since the liability has been fastened under misconception of facts we hold that this payment also is not liable u/s 194H of the Act. In view thereof second ground of the assessee with regard to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) stands allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the cess paid to RCDF is considered fees for professional or technical services, liable for TDS under Section 194J.
2. Whether the milk purchase difference paid to milk societies is considered commission, liable for TDS under Section 194H.
3. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 42,41,575/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to Rs. 97,110/-.
4. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 54,73,480/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to Rs. 2,42,809/-.
5. Whether the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s. JVNL vs. DCIT was appropriate.
6. Whether the disallowance should be restricted to the amount remaining unpaid at the end of the year.
7. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 4.52 lacs related to the purchase of goods attracts the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cess Paid to RCDF:

The assessee argued that the cess paid to RCDF was a statutory payment and not liable for TDS. The AO held it as commission/brokerage liable for TDS under Section 194H and disallowed the same under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) held it as fees for managerial services liable for TDS under Section 194J but reduced the disallowance based on the judgment of M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transport and JVVNL, restricting it to the outstanding amount at year-end. The Tribunal found no rendering of managerial services by RCDF and concluded that the payment was neither liable for TDS under Section 194H nor Section 194J.

2. Milk Purchase Difference:

The AO considered the milk purchase difference paid to District Primary Cooperative Societies (DPCS) and Primary District Cooperative Society (PDCS) as commission liable for TDS under Section 194H. The CIT(A) upheld this but restricted the disallowance to the outstanding amount at year-end. The Tribunal noted that the payment was made to primary societies, not cattle owners, and was a fixed margin for milk purchase, not commission. Therefore, the payment was not liable for TDS under Section 194H.

3. Disallowance of Rs. 42,41,575/-:

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 97,110/- based on the judgment of M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transport, which was upheld by the Tribunal, as the payment was not liable for TDS.

4. Disallowance of Rs. 54,73,480/-:

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 2,42,809/- based on the same judgment, which the Tribunal upheld, as the payment was not liable for TDS.

5. Reliance on ITAT Jaipur Bench Decision:

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reliance on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s. JVNL vs. DCIT appropriate, as it was relevant to the facts of the case.

6. Disallowance Restricted to Unpaid Amount:

The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the outstanding amount payable to RCDF and allow the expenditure to that extent, which the Tribunal upheld.

7. Disallowance of Rs. 4.52 Lacs:

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 4.52 lacs, holding that the payments to Bansal Printers and M/s. Mahalaxmi Welding Workshop were for the purchase of goods and not for advertisement, and the payment to RCDF was reimbursement of expenses. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no TDS liability on these payments.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, holding that the payments to RCDF and primary societies were not liable for TDS. The disallowances made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) were restricted or deleted based on the relevant judgments and facts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the disallowance of Rs. 4.52 lacs and the reliance on the ITAT Jaipur Bench decision.

← Previous Next →