9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 84 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194H - Discount versus Commission or brokerage - the business working of the assessee is that it signs agreements with the Collection Centres on a non-exclusive basis. It is under these agreements that the Collection Centres avail the professional services of the assessee regarding testing of samples. These Centres operate as authorized Collectors for collecting the samples. - held that - We hold that (i) there is no Principal-Agent relationship between the assessee and the Collection Centres and that being so the provisions of section 194H of the Act have been wrongly invoked; (ii) The provisions of section 194H of the Act could even otherwise not have been met since no payment has been shown to have been made by the assessee to the Collection Centres; (iii) The payment made to the assessee by the collection Centres was at the rates agreed to inter se between them; and (iv) The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 11, 78, 24, 030 made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the alleged failure of TDS by the assessee u/s 194H of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for alleged failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194H. 2. Principal-agent relationship between the assessee and Collection Centres. 3. Nature of the amount retained by Collection Centres (discount vs. commission). 4. Applicability of Section 194C for the discount offered by the assessee to Collection Centres. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for alleged failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194H: The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance of Rs. 11,78,24,030 out of the total disallowance of Rs. 16,80,66,667 made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) for not deducting tax under section 194H. The AO had disallowed the amount on the basis that the assessee did not deduct tax on the discount offered to Collection Centres, treating it as commission. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, asserting that the relationship between the assessee and Collection Centres was that of Principal and Agent, thus attracting Section 194H. 2. Principal-agent relationship between the assessee and Collection Centres: The assessee argued that no Principal-Agent relationship existed between them and the Collection Centres, which is essential for invoking Section 194H. The Collection Centres operated independently, collecting samples and forwarding them to the assessee only upon specific requests from patients/customers. The Centres issued their own invoices and collected fees directly from patients. The assessee provided laboratory testing services at a discounted price to the Centres, and the Centres paid the assessee after deducting tax under Section 194J for professional services. The Tribunal found no evidence to contradict the assessee's claims, noting that the Collection Centres were not obligated to exclusively use the assessee's services and operated independently with their own infrastructure and staff. Thus, no Principal-Agent relationship was established. 3. Nature of the amount retained by Collection Centres (discount vs. commission): The Tribunal examined whether the amount retained by the Collection Centres was a discount or commission. It noted that the Centres charged rates set by themselves, not by the assessee, and were free to engage other laboratories. The Tribunal concluded that the amount retained by the Centres was a discount, not commission, as there was no Principal-Agent relationship. The discount offered by the assessee could not be considered expenditure, and thus, Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. 4. Applicability of Section 194C for the discount offered by the assessee to Collection Centres: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to address their challenge to the AO's finding that the discount was a payment for work, necessitating TDS under Section 194C. However, since the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the main issue, it did not delve into this aspect. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that: (i) No Principal-Agent relationship existed between the assessee and the Collection Centres, making Section 194H inapplicable. (ii) Even otherwise, Section 194H could not be complied with as no payment was made by the assessee to the Collection Centres. (iii) The payment made to the assessee by the Collection Centres was at agreed rates. (iv) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for the alleged failure of TDS under Section 194H.
|
