Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1775 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194H - payment gateway charges paid to the banks – HDFC, ICICI, American Express and Citi Banks - made by one principal to another principal - Held that:- On consideration of the rival submissions in the light of the earlier order of the Tribunal we find that this issue is already decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal following the decision of CIT Vs. JDS Apparels (P.) Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 732 - DELHI HIGH COURT) in which it was held “that commission to bank on payments received from customers who had made purchase through credit cards is not liable to TDS under section 194H of the I. T. Act.” The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of same assessee vide order dated 30th January, 2017. Therefore, there is no justification for the authorities below to sustain addition on this issue. Assessee also moved before the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax for direction under section 144A of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2011-12 on the identical issue in which the learned Addl. Commissioner issued the directions vide order dated 20th March, 2015 directing the Assessing Officer to follow decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of JDS Apparels (P.) Ltd. (supra). It, therefore, stands concluded that assessee is not liable to make TDS on payments gateway charges. Therefore, provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance on account of rate of depreciation on computer peripherals - Held that:- Assessee has not pointed out any error in the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in declining part depreciation on the items which were not part of the computer software. The learned CIT (Appeals) did not allow higher depreciation on items like digital call logger board and software protection, Nortel equipment, head-sets and time attendance system, because they would not fall within the definition of computer or computer software. In the absence of any serious challenge to the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals), we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). We confirm the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the ground of the assessee.
|