2017 (2) TMI 801 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194H - TDS liability on Processing Fees - Held that - It is sine qua non that there has to be a principal agent relationship for a payment to be treated as commission or brokerage. The recipient of the income must act on behalf of the principal. Here the banker does not act on behalf of the assessee for rendering any kind of service. The contract of guarantee does not give any rise to principal - agent relationship between the assessee and the bank and, therefore, the consideration received by the bank on account of guarantee commission cannot be reckoned as commission as contemplated under section 194H and accordingly, there was no requirement to deduct TDS on this payment. TDS u/s 194I - Addition with regard to payments made by the assessee for holding/display rights - Held that - Definitely there is no requirement of deducting TDS under section 194I on such payment, because it does not fall within rent . Interest levied u/s. 201 (1A) - Held that - There was no liability to deduct tax at source for the payment made on account of Processing Fees and Guarantee Commission, that there was no short deduction of tax with regard to payments made for holding/display rights by the assessee. So, the issue of levying interest would not survive. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to deduct tax at source on certain payments under section 194H and 194J of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of processing fees and guarantee commission paid to banks.
3. Payment for holding/display rights and the requirement to deduct TDS.

Issue 1: Failure to Deduct Tax at Source on Certain Payments:
The Assessing Officer (AO) challenged the order of the CIT (A) regarding the failure to deduct tax at source on certain payments under sections 194H and 194J of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (A) agreed with the assessee that processing fees paid to the bank were in the nature of upfront interest and did not require TDS deduction under section 194J. The CIT (A) also ruled that guarantee fees did not fall under the category of commission or brokerage for TDS purposes. The AO was directed to delete payments for capitalized expenses related to holding/display rights, where TDS was not required. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision on these issues, dismissing the AO's appeal.

Issue 2: Treatment of Processing Fees and Guarantee Commission:
Regarding the processing fees paid to the bank, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that such fees fell under the definition of interest as per section 2(28A) and were excluded from TDS requirements under section 194A(3). The Tribunal cited precedents to support this interpretation. Similarly, the guarantee fees paid did not qualify as commission or brokerage under section 194H due to the absence of a principal-agent relationship. A CBDT circular further clarified that guarantee fees to nationalized banks were not subject to withholding tax. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision on these payments, dismissing the revenue's grounds.

Issue 3: Payment for Holding/Display Rights and TDS Requirement:
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition for payments made by the assessee for holding/display rights. Capitalized expenses did not require TDS deduction, and the AO was directed to verify the nature of expenses to determine TDS applicability. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds on this issue, following the CIT (A)'s order from a previous case. As a result, the appeal filed by the AO was dismissed, and the interest levied under section 201(1A) was also set aside due to the absence of TDS liability on the relevant payments.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues related to the failure to deduct tax at source, treatment of processing fees and guarantee commission, and the payment for holding/display rights, providing a detailed overview of the legal reasoning and decisions made by the authorities involved.