Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 485 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194H - discounts allowed on prepaid services as distributor margin - validity of passed under section 201(1) /201(1A) as passed beyond the limitation period - HELD THAT:- Clause (i) to section 201(3) of the Act specifies that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) of section 203 of the Act deeming a period to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a resident in India, at any time after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed. Here, the assessee has not deducted TDS under section 194H of the Act and thus, the question of filing of quarterly statement as required under section 200 of the Act by the assessee do not arise and therefore, we held that the assessee is not covered by the provisions of section 201(3)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has validly confirmed the order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed for both the assessment years. TDS u/s 194H - Whether sale of recharge vouchers and prepaid vouchers and prepaid cards to the sole distributors does not establish Principal-Agent relationship liable to TDS under section 194H? - HELD THAT:- As relying on HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. [2017 (7) TMI 1076 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. AND [2014 (12) TMI 642 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]Sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to distributors is not commission and therefore not liable to TDS under section 194H of the Act. However, we find that while deciding similar issue, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) [2010 (8) TMI 691 - KERALA HIGH COURT]has taken a different view, as the relevant observations are reproduced hereinabove, and decided the issue against the assessee. In the absence of any jurisdictional High Court decision brought to the notice of the Bench, we are of the considered opinion that other High Court’s decisions are binding on the Tribunal to take a decision, but, since there exist two contradictory decisions other High Courts, we are of the opinion that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], which says that if a statutory provision is capable of more than one view, then the view which favours the tax payer should be preferred, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee
|