9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 801 - AT - Income TaxTDS on payment made to bank towards bank charges and bank guarantee commission - Held that - All the decisions reliance has been placed on Notification No. S03069 (E) NO. 56/2012 (F.NO. 27-section 197A of the Income Tax Act dated 31/12/12 which has held the circular to be clarificatory in nature and therefore though issued w.e.f. 01/01/13, applies retrospectively and hence no deduction of tax is required on payment of bank guarantee commission and bank charges to the banks. SEE Kotak Securities Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Circle 2(1), Mumbai 2012 (2) TMI 77 - ITAT MUMBAI - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Disallowance of Bank Charges and Bank Guarantee commission under Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of NOTIFICATION NO. 56/2012 issued by CBDT. 3. Requirement of TDS deduction on charges paid to the Bank. 4. Additional grounds of appeal. Issue 1: Disallowance of Bank Charges and Bank Guarantee Commission: The appellant challenged the disallowance of bank charges and bank guarantee commission by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO disallowed an amount under the belief that certain items listed by the appellant fell within the ambit of Notification 56/2012, thus requiring TDS deductions. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed this disallowance. However, the appellant argued that the payments made to the bank towards bank charges and bank guarantee commission were covered by the circular issued by the CBDT and hence no TDS deduction was required. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that the circular applied retrospectively, and no deduction of tax was necessary on these payments. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Kotak Securities Ltd versus DCIT, where it was established that no principal-agent relationship existed between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee, thus no tax deduction was required under section 194H. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the appellant, leading to the appeal being allowed. Issue 2: Applicability of NOTIFICATION NO. 56/2012: The appellant contended that Notification No. 56/2012 issued by the CBDT provided relief to the assessee and was binding upon the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant argued that the notification applied prospectively from 31.12.2012 onwards, and the assessment in question was done on 21.03.2014. The Ld. CIT (A) was criticized for not appreciating the facts of the case concerning the notification. However, the Tribunal, after thorough examination, concluded that the circular was clarificatory in nature and applied retrospectively, thereby supporting the appellant's stance that no TDS deduction was required on the payments made to the bank. Issue 3: Requirement of TDS Deduction on Bank Charges: The core issue in this appeal was whether TDS should be deducted on payments made to the bank for bank charges and bank guarantee commission. The Tribunal analyzed the circular issued by the CBDT, which specified that no tax deduction was necessary on certain payments made to banks listed in the Second Schedule to the RBI Act, 1934. The Tribunal found that the circular was clarificatory and applied retrospectively, thereby relieving the appellant from the obligation to deduct TDS on these payments. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and upheld the consistent view that no tax deduction was required on bank guarantee charges, as there was no principal-agent relationship between the bank and the assessee. Issue 4: Additional Grounds of Appeal: The appellant reserved the right to raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. However, since the primary issues regarding the disallowance of bank charges and bank guarantee commission were resolved in favor of the appellant based on the applicability of the circular issued by the CBDT, there was no need to address any additional grounds of appeal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee based on the findings related to the main issues discussed. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key legal arguments, decisions, and interpretations made by the Tribunal regarding the issues raised in the appeal.
|
