9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht of the following decisions, the only view possible in this matter is the provisions of section 194H is not applicable to the payments made to bank since it is not in the nature of “commission”, as it is understood in common business parlance and in the context of provisions of section 194H of the Act. In other words, it is not a transaction between ‘principal and agent’ so as to invoke the provisions of section 194H of the Act. A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) were not justified in invoking the provisions of section 194H of the Act in the instant case in order to hold that the assessee is a defaulter. In other words, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source and consequently the disallowance in the instant case is not warranted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Shipping and Transport Ltd vs. ACIT (16 ITR 1). 3. The Assessing Officer did not accept both the contentions and invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Ac for the purpose of making an addition / disallowance of ₹ 48,33,907/-. 4. Though both the issues were urged before the Ld. CIT(A), the first contention i.e., with regard to non-applicability of section 194H, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) as in his opinion the payment made to the bank is in the nature of commission as it is understood in the business parlance and hence it has to be treated as a transaction between principal and agent and the provisions of section 194H were applied. It was further observed that the Notification issued by CBDT were applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H of the Act. 8. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay about 15 days in filing the Cross Objections. The appeal memo was received by the assessee on 05.04.2016 whereas the Cross Objections were filed on 19.04.2016. Having regard to the reasons given in the application filed for condonation of delay, in filing the Cross Objection, we are of the view that there is a sufficient cause for filing belated Cross Objections and accordingly upon taking to consideration the fact of the case we admit the Cross Objections and proceed to dispose of the Cross Objections on merits. 9. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Special Bench (supra) and the decision of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the context of provisions of section 194H of the Act. In other words, it is not a transaction between principal and agent so as to invoke the provisions of section 194H of the Act. Ld Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions; viz., (i) decision of the ITAT, SMC Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Laqshya Media Pvt Ltd (ITA No.4390/Mum/2015, dated 7.7.2016); (ii) Kotak Securities Ltd [2012] 14 ITR (Trib) 495 (ITAT [Mum]) and (iii) M/s. Efftronics Systems Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA Nos.188 and 216/Vizag/2015, dated 21.10.2016). 11. Ld DR however could not place any decision in favour of the Revenue. She strongly relied upon the orders passed by the tax authorities. 12. Having regard to the consistent view taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
