9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 610 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194H or 194J - Short deduction of TDS - commission payment - HELD THAT - Assessee has filed complete details before the Ld.CIT(A), including agreement between the parties, as per which the modus operandi of the assesses to sale of goods has been explained, as per which the assessee sales goods to stockiest and raises invoices and collets applicable excise duty and VAT. Further, the title in the goods is transferred to the stockiest, at the time of delivery. Arrangements between the assessee and the stockiest for sale of goods is in the nature of principal to principal basis, but not in the nature of principal to agent and accordingly, amount paid by the assesee to stockists is not in the nature of commission, which is liable for TDS u/s 194H. CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assesee has rightly deleted additions made by the AO toward short deduction of TDS u/s 201(1) and consequent interest u/s 201(1A) . We do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT (A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed appeal filed by the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions under section 194J and 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Determination of the nature of transaction between the assessee and stockiest. 3. Assessment of TDS liability on margin allowed to stockiest. 4. Applicability of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. Issue 1: Interpretation of provisions under section 194J and 194H: The appeal and cross objection were filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue raised grounds questioning the decision under section 194J, while the assessing officer considered commission payment under section 194H. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the transactions between the assessee and stockiest were in the nature of sale, not requiring TDS deduction under 194H. The Ld.CIT(A) referred to relevant case laws and agreements to support this decision, ultimately deleting the additions made by the AO. Issue 2: Determination of the nature of transaction: The assessee, engaged in trading and manufacture of pharmaceuticals, had a business model where stockiest placed orders, goods were transferred to clearing agents, and then dispatched to stockists. The AO issued notices for TDS computation on the margin allowed to stockists under section 194H. The assessee contended that sales were on a principal-to-principal basis, not requiring TDS deduction. The Ld.CIT(A) agreed, emphasizing the nature of the transactions as sales, not agency relationships, based on invoices and agreements, leading to the deletion of TDS defaults. Issue 3: Assessment of TDS liability on margin allowed to stockiest: The AO computed short TDS deductions and interest under section 201(1A) on the margin allowed to stockists. The Ld.CIT(A) disagreed, citing the nature of the transactions as sales, not subject to TDS under 194H. The interest levied was also deemed consequential and was deleted as the appellant was not treated as a defaulter. The decision was supported by the ITAT's findings in the assessee's previous case, further solidifying the non-applicability of TDS provisions. Issue 4: Applicability of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act: The AO levied interest under section 201(1A) on alleged non-deduction of TDS on margins earned by stockists. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted this interest as the appellant was not deemed a defaulter, aligning with the decision on TDS liability. The interest computation was considered erroneous due to the spread-out nature of sales throughout the year. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the principal-to-principal nature of transactions between the assessee and stockists, thereby dismissing the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection.
|
