9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 786 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194H - non deduction of the tax at source on payment of discount/commission charges - Held that - We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jet Airways India Ltd. (2013 (8) TMI 586 - ITAT MUMBAI) whereby it was held that the credit card commission to the banks are in the nature of normal bank charges and are not in the nature of commission within the meaning of Section 194H of the Act, and therefore no tax is required to be deducted at source on the same u/s 194H of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether TDS was deductible under Section 194H by the assessee on the amount held by banks/credit card agencies as service charges. 2. The nature of the relationship between the assessee company and the bank/credit card agencies. 3. Whether the relationship between the assessee and the bank/credit card agencies was of principal and agent, thus bringing the charges within the purview of Section 194H. 4. Deletion of interest under Section 201(1A) on non-deduction of tax as determined by the AO. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. TDS Deduction under Section 194H: The primary issue was whether the assessee was required to deduct TDS under Section 194H on the amounts retained by banks/credit card agencies as service charges. The AO argued that these amounts were in the nature of commission and thus subject to TDS. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Jet Airways India Ltd., which held that payments to banks for credit card facilities are in the nature of bank charges, not commission, and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194H. 2. Nature of Relationship: The AO contended that the relationship between the assessee and the bank/credit card agencies was that of principal and agent, making the service charges subject to TDS under Section 194H. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the relationship was not of a principal and agent but rather that the banks were providing a service for a fee, which is a normal banking transaction and not commission. 3. Principal-Agent Relationship: The AO's argument was based on the premise that the banks acted as agents for the assessee by facilitating credit card transactions and thus the service charges were commission. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the banks were not acting as agents but were merely providing a service for which they charged a fee. This fee was considered a banking charge, not commission, and thus outside the purview of Section 194H. 4. Deletion of Interest under Section 201(1A): The AO had determined interest under Section 201(1A) for non-deduction of tax. However, since the primary tax liability under Section 194H was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal, the consequential interest under Section 201(1A) was also deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the amounts retained by banks/credit card agencies were not in the nature of commission but were normal bank charges. Therefore, no TDS was required under Section 194H. The appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years were dismissed, and the deletion of the demand of Rs. 39,18,280/- raised by the AO was upheld. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the precedent set by the case of Jet Airways India Ltd., reinforcing that such service charges are not subject to TDS under Section 194H. Order: Both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 28.12.2015.
|
