9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 333 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194H or 194J - tds on discount offered to pre-paid distributors - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case assessee 2013 (1) TMI 516 - ITAT AHMADABAD is not liable to deduct tax u/s.194H and 194J. Therefore, assessee is not in default for such TDS. On the principle of consistency and respectfully following the order of co-ordinate bench and in our considered opinion ld. CIT(A) has passed a detailed and reasoned order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal by revenue against CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 regarding non-deduction of TDS on discount to distributors and roaming charges. Analysis: Issue 1: Non-deduction of TDS on discount to distributors The revenue contended that CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand raised under section 201(1)/201(1) of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on discounts offered to pre-paid distributors. The AO treated the assessee as "assessee in default" for not deducting TDS on commission paid to distributors. The AO observed that no TDS was deducted on the commission paid to distributors, leading to a demand. The assessee argued that there was no "Principal-Agent" relationship, treating the amount paid as a discount, not commission. The AO was not convinced and made an addition to the income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, and the Tribunal upheld this decision based on the principle of consistency and previous rulings in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Non-deduction of TDS on roaming charges The revenue also challenged the deletion of demand under section 201(1)/201(1) of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on roaming charges paid to other telecom companies. The AO treated the assessee as "assessee in default" for not deducting TDS on roaming charges. The assessee argued that roaming services did not involve human intervention and were not technical services, hence not liable for TDS deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing previous rulings and the absence of a requirement for TDS deduction due to the nature of the services provided. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals by the revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision in both cases. The Tribunal found the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the nature of transactions and the absence of TDS liability to be reasonable and consistent with previous rulings. The cross objection by the assessee was also dismissed.
|
