| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 5336 (Chd-Trib) : (2019) 179 ITD 0207 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 194H
Relationship between assessee and distributor was that of principal to principal and, therefore, when assessee sold the SIM cards to the distributor, he was not paying any commission and no income liable for TDS under section 194H accrued in the hands of distributor and assessee was under no legal obligation to deduct tax.
|
Tax deduction at source - Under section 194H - Assessee - Telecom operator extended discount to pre-paid distributors on transfer of pre-paid SIm cards/talk time--Principal-to-Principal relationship between assessee and distributor
Assessee, telecom operator extended discount to pre-paid distributors on transfer of pre-paid SIM cards/talk time. AO held the same to be in the nature of commission liable for TDS under section 194H.Held: Relationship between assessee and distributor was that of principal to principal and, therefore, when assessee sold the SIM cards to the distributor, he was not paying any commission and no income liable for TDS under section 194H accrued in the hands of distributor and assessee was under no legal obligation to deduct tax.
REFERRED : Bharti Airtel lid. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 33 (Karn-HC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 4369 (Karn-HC), Hindustan Cofca Cola Beverages (P.) (Ltd.) v. CIT (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 295 (Raj-HC) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5030 (Raj-HC), Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited v. Asstt.CIT, TDS-3(1) [ITA Nos. 2043 to 2045/Mum/2014] (Mum-Trib), Tata Sky Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT, Mumbai (2018) 68 ITR (T) 1621 (Mum-Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7422 (Mum-Trib),Vodafone Spacetel Limited v. Asstt. CIT, TDS [ITA Nos. 76-77/PAT/2012) (Pat-Trib],Vodafone Cellular Limited v. Dy. CIT (TDS-1) [ITA Nos. 817,818 1577, 1578, 1961 & 1962/PUN/2013] (Pune-Trib) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 715 (Pune-Trib), TATA Teleservices Limited v. ITO [ITA Nos. 309/JP/2012, 502,503, 504 & 505/JP/2011], Idea Cellular Limited v. ITO [ITA No. 356, 357, 358 and 359/JP/2012) Jaipur Tribunal, Vodafone South Limited v. Dy. CIT [ITA Nos. 601 & 602/B/13; 618 to 621/B/14 and ITA 956 & 957] Bangalore ITAT Bench, Asstt. CIT v. Reliance Communications [ITA 4677/M/2012 & 6726/M/2012] (Mum-Trib), CIT v. Qatar Airways (2011) 332 ITR 253 (Bom-HC) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0038 (Bom-HC), Vodafone South Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 66 Taxmann.com 15 (AP-HC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1071 (AP-HC),Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 15 (Ahd-Trib), Bharti Hexacom Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) II, Jaipur (2015) 42 ITR(T) 686 (Jp) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3831 (Jp-Trib),Vodafone Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA 1414 & 1415/Mds/2014], dated 21-9-2017 (Chen-Trib) and Jagran Prakashan Limited (All-HC) (2012345 ITR 288 : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2050 (All-HC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2013-14
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 194J
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|