2016 (7) TMI 1284 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s. 194H - TDS on interest/commission payable on bank guarantee - Held that - In view of the case of M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2012 (2) TMI 77 - ITAT MUMBAI) it is specifically held that no TDS is payable on bank guarantee charges u/s. 194H of the Act. Therefore, the same is not liable to be deducted. This issue has further came into existence in the assessee s own case for the A.Y.2010-11 wherein ITAT while deciding the matter in the assessee s own case has also decided the issue in favour of the assessee on relying the case decided by the Hon ble Tribunal M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. (Supra). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of TDS provisions on bank guarantee commission charges under section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the applicability of TDS on bank guarantee commission charges under section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case stemmed from a survey operation conducted at the premises of the assessee company, which is a holding company of various group companies. During the survey, it was noted that expenses incurred on bank guarantee commission were not subjected to TDS. Subsequently, a notice under section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for non-deduction of TDS on bank guarantee commission. The Assessing Officer contended that TDS was required to be deducted on such expenses, leading to an additional tax liability on the assessee.

In response, the assessee challenged the order, and the learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on a previous judgment in the case of M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd., where it was held that no TDS was payable on bank guarantee commission charges under section 194H of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing arguments from both parties and examining the records, upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been previously addressed in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-11, where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee based on the judgment in the case of M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. The Tribunal found no contrary material against the previous judgment and concluded that the CIT(A) had correctly decided the matter, warranting no interference at the appellate stage.

Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, emphasizing the consistent interpretation of TDS provisions on bank guarantee commission charges under section 194H as per previous judgments.