9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the matter back to the respondent despite the legal position being well settled and material facts being on record. 2. Whether the trade incentive given to dealers should be considered as commission or brokerage under section 194H of the IT Act, 1961. 3. Whether the price at which dealers sell goods determines the true relationship between the appellant company and the dealers. Issue 1: The assessee, a manufacturer of bicycles, appointed dealers for sales. The AO treated the trade incentive given to dealers as falling under section 194H. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's case, considering the incentive as a discount rather than commission. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the incentive was subject to TDS and did not result in price abatement. The Tribunal, referring to a Gujarat High Court judgment, remanded the matter to the AO for re-examination after verifying the sale price. Issue 2: The assessee contended that the sale price alone should not determine the relationship between the company and dealers. The Revenue argued that the matter was remanded for re-examination and there was no need for interference. The CIT(A) had concluded that the incentive was a discount based on simple agreements between the company and dealers. Issue 3: The Tribunal's observation that the price at which dealers sell goods determines the relationship between the parties was challenged. The Tribunal clarified that the entire order should be considered, not just one sentence. Following the Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal stated that if dealers sold goods at the purchase price, the trade incentive would be considered as commission. The matter was remanded to the AO for independent examination, allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence if needed. In conclusion, the tax case appeal was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
