9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 735 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271C - Short deduction of tax at source in respect of Brand fee paid - TDS u/s 194J or u/s 194C - Held that - With regard to the belief of the assessee that the payment was in the nature of contract payment the agreement clearly indicated that the payment was brand fee and the assessee had not entered in to any contract for rendering the services but manufactured the goods on it s own in the brand name of parent company and sold the same to APBCL. For using the Brand name the assessee had made the payment of Royalty which clearly indicated by the agreement and discussed in detail by the CIT(A). Therefore this argument of the assessee is not tenable. The argument of the assessee that short deduction does not cause loss to the revenue is not a reasonable explanation and it shows the willful default of the assessee for short deduction In the instant case the assessee could not establish with the tangible evidence to show that there was reasonable cause for short deduction of tax. Therefore we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to explain the reasons for short deduction of tax at source, hence, we up hold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Short deduction of tax at source on brand fee payments. 2. Classification of payments as royalty or contractual payments. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act. 4. Reasonable cause for short deduction of tax. Detailed Analysis: 1. Short Deduction of Tax at Source on Brand Fee Payments: The assessee made short deductions of tax at source on brand fee payments to M/s United Breweries Ltd (UBL) and Millennium Breweries India Ltd (MBIL). The assessee deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C instead of the required 10% under Section 194J. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the brand fee as royalty and raised a demand for short deduction of tax. 2. Classification of Payments as Royalty or Contractual Payments: The core issue was whether the brand fee paid by the assessee should be classified as royalty or contractual payments. The AO and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that the brand fee was in the nature of royalty for the use of the brand name and thus attracted TDS at 10% under Section 194J. The ITAT upheld this view, stating that the payment made to the brand owners under the brewing agreement could not be considered a contract payment under Section 194C. The ITAT emphasized that the assessee acted as the manufacturer and sold the products under its own invoice using the brand name of the parent companies, thus making the payment a royalty. 3. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act: The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Jt. CIT) imposed a penalty under Section 271C for the short deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, and the ITAT upheld this decision. The ITAT referred to the Brewing Agreement, which clearly indicated that the payments were for the use of the trademark and thus constituted royalty. The ITAT rejected the assessee's argument that the payments were contractual, noting that the terms of the agreement explicitly stated the payments were for brand fees. 4. Reasonable Cause for Short Deduction of Tax: The assessee argued that it was under a bona fide belief that the payments were contractual and not royalty, and thus deducted TDS under Section 194C. The ITAT dismissed this argument, stating that the plain terms of the Brewing Agreement indicated the payments were for brand fees. The ITAT also noted that the assessee did not provide any evidence to show a reasonable cause for the short deduction of tax. The ITAT referred to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's definition of "reasonable cause" and concluded that the assessee's belief was not justified. The ITAT also dismissed the argument that the statutory auditors did not mention the default in their report, stating that the auditors' opinion does not absolve the assessee from its obligation to deduct the correct amount of tax. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the penalty under Section 271C for the short deduction of tax at source. The ITAT concluded that the payments made by the assessee were in the nature of royalty and attracted TDS at 10% under Section 194J. The ITAT also rejected the assessee's argument of a bona fide belief and reasonable cause for the short deduction, emphasizing the clear terms of the Brewing Agreement and the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claims. The appeals of the assessee were dismissed.
|
