9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4027/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2017 - Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member, And Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri Angulkar For The Respondent : Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ORDER Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-59, Mumbai dated 13.04.2015 for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 The assessee company is principally engaged in the business of provision of services for surface transportation. Pursuant to survey action under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 06.08.2013 the Assessing Officer (AO) required the assessee to explain (i) as to why tax was not deducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6657/Mum/2011 dated 03.02.2012 the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H of the Act on bank guarantee commission . 3.1 Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-59, Mumbai dated 13.04.2015 for A.Y. 2012-13, has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - 1. Grounds of Appeal: - i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the short deduction u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(IA) of the I.T. Act, in respect of bank guarantee commission on the basis of reasoning that bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of 'Commission' and no TDS was required to be deducted on such cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which was placed before the bank. 3.2.2 On a perusal of the order of the aforesaid Coordinate Bench in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 (supra) we find that this issue has been discussed, considered and adjudicated in favour of the assessee; holding that the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on payments of the bank guarantee commission charges under section 194H of the Act. In coming to this finding the Coordinate Bench followed the decisions of other Coordinate Benches in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 5241/Mum/2011 dated 03.02.2012) and in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 3920/Mum/2014. In its order in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 5241/Mum/2014 dated 20.07.2016, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee challenged the said order and the learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal on the assessee in the case of M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. in ITA No.6657/Mum/2011 dated 03.02.2012 for the ITA No.5241/M/14 A.Y. 2011-12 3 A.Y.2004-05. In the said judgment it was held that no TDS was payable on the bank guarantee commission charges u/s.194H of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The Assessing Officer is of the view that TDS is required to be deducted upon the interest/commission payable on bank guarantee and accordingly the interest is also required to be payable u/s.201(1A) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
