Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 529 - HC - Income TaxDepreciation on valuation of investment portfolio - tribunal allowed claim by treating the investments held by the assessee bank as stock-in-trade once the RBI Master Circular read with CBDT Circular No.665 came into force - Exemption u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have been answered in favour of the assessee by division bench decision of this court in 'KARANTAKA BANK LTD. [2013 (7) TMI 656 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] decision of the Supreme Court in 'MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] and judgment [2020 (1) TMI 1141 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] respectively. The aforesaid assertion made by learned counsel for the assessee could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgments, the first and second substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. TDS u/s 194H - payment made towards the service charges rendered by M/s. NFS - HELD THAT:- In case the credit card issued by the assessee was used on the swiping machine of another bank, the customer whose credit card was used got access to internet gateway of acquiring bank resulting in realization of the payment. Subsequently, the acquiring bank realize and recover the payment from the bank, which had issued the credit card. The relationship between the assessee and any other bank is not of an agency but that of two independent basis on principal- principal basis. Even assuming that the transaction was being routed to National Financial Switch and Cash Tree, then also it is pertinent to mention here that the same is a consortium of banks and no commission or brokerage is paid to it. It does not act as an agent for collecting charges. Therefore, we concur with the view taken by the High court of Delhi in JDS APPARELS [2014 (11) TMI 732 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and hold that provisions of Section 194H of the Act are not attracted to the fact situation of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|