9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that Excess Interest Spread (EIS) amount of Rs. 8,73,92,849/- paid during F.Y. 2016-17 (relevant to A.Y. 2017-18) to the originator, M/s. Janalakhsmi Financial Services Limited, cannot be held to be at part with income paid by the assessee trust to its investors (who had subscribed to pass through certificates) as defined in section 115TCA of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194LBC of the I. T. Act, 1961, on the payment made to the originator M/s. Janalakhsmi Financial Services Limited by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Act for the reason that the assessee has committed default u/s. 194LBC of the Act for non deduction of TDS on the EIS paid to the Originator. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 07.08.2024 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee trust is not liable to deduct TDS and is, therefore, not 'an assessee in default'. 5. The Revenue aggrieved by the impugned order is in appeal before us, on the above mentioned grounds, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue relied on the order of the ld. A.O. and contended that the assessee was rightly held to be assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een 6% to 9%. It is observed that the IDBI Trusteeship Ltd. manages and controls various securitization trust like the assessee Trust where the financial assets are sold to the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) from the Originator who is the owner of the financial asset. The assessee Trust had paid to the originator EIS amounting to Rs. 8,73,92,849/-, spreading over from April 2016 to March, 2017 for which the ld. A.O. has contended that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS amounting to Rs. 2,62,17,855/- u/s. 194LBC @ 30%, which is tabulated herein under: Sr. No. Month Month wise EIS payment TDS to be deducted u/s. 194LBC @ 30% 1 Apr, 16 Nil Nil 2 May, 16 Nil Nil 3 Jun, 16 17125951 5137785 4 July, 16 14963981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of EIS did not accrue or arise from the investment and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to deduct TDS on the same. 9. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) had relied on the following decisions in support of the assessee's contention: * ITO vs. Syamantaka IFMR Capital 2017 (in ITA No. 2640/Mum/2023 vide order dated 08.05.2024) * M/s. Vivriti Cibus 013 2017 vs. ITO(TDS) (in ITA No. 3171/Mum/2022 vide order dated 30.11.2023) * SME Pool Series V August 2016 vs. ITO (in ITA Nos. 341 & 342/Mum/2023 vide order dated 21.02.2024) From the above factual matrix of the case, it is observed that this issue has already been dealt with by the jurisdictional co-ordinate bench extensively which has taken a view i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
