All these appeals by revenue are directed against order of learned CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi, dt. 19th April, 2005 in appeal against order under s. 201(1) of IT Act ( Act ) treating assessee as assessee in default for failure to deduct tax at source. assessee herein is dealer in car, spares and services of vehicles manufactured by Maruti India Ltd. assessee entered into business collaboration agreement on 16th Dec., 1997 with M/s West Delhi Automobiles ( P ) Ltd. (in short WDAPL ). Pursuant to agreement assessee made certain payments. assessee treated same as payment to contractor and accordingly, deducted tax at source under s. 194C of Act. AO held that in substance payment is towards hire charges by way of rent for premises of M/s WDAPL utilized in business of dealership of car. He accordingly held that assessee should have deducted tax @ 20 per cent on such payment under s. 194-I of Act. Learned CIT(A) interpreting agreement held that assessee was to pay commission @ Rs. 1,000 per vehicle sold. He accordingly treated payment as commission within meaning of s. 194H of Act. He also held that if payee has offered income and taxes have been paid, demand should not be enforced against assessee. For this purpose, he relied upon instructions of CBDT No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dt. 29th Jan., 1997. As regards interest under s. 201(1A), it was held that consequential effect will be given by AO once he has verified from deductee assessee quantum of taxes paid by him and manner in which it has been done. Revenue is in further appeal before us. learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to various clauses in so-called business collaboration agreement dt. 16th Dec., 1997. In said agreement, it is clear that M/s WDAPL is in possession of premises being 13,460 sq. ft. of covered area and 11,200 sq. ft. open area. This premises was offered to assessee as dealer for display/sale, repair, parking and servicing of Maruti make vehicles. To give colour, it was agreed that assessee will pay commission @ 1,000 per vehicle with minimum assured payment of at least for 300 to 350 vehicles. It was also agreed that assessee will send about 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles per month for carrying out services of washing and cleaning and for which sum of Rs. 140 per vehicle was payable as service charges. Minimum service charges in respect of servicing of vehicles was agreed for 900 vehicles per month. Though it is agreed that assessee shall have no right as tenant, in substance payment is for use of space and hence, in correct spirit should be treated as payment of rent for premises and accordingly tax should have been deducted under s. 194-I of Act. Thus, order of CIT holding that payment should be treated as commission or brokerage within meaning of s. 194H is erroneous. As regards finding that if payee has offered income, necessary material should be made available to AO so as to absolve assessee from any further liability. However, nature of payment should continue to be that of rent and neither as commission nor as contractual payment. Learned counsel for assessee, on other hand, submitted that under business collaboration agreement, assessee was not required to deduct any tax at source. Thus, even though assessee has deducted tax at source under s. 194C, it is not payment to contractor. In this case, two persons have joined hands for ultimate business as dealer and servicing of Maruti make vehicles. assessee is appointed as authorized dealer but has no experience on such line. M/s WDAPL, payee has space as well as sufficient manpower to undertake sales and servicing also. Thus, payment is not falling under any of section like 194C or 194H or 194-I. Apart from providing space, payee has provided generator set, hydraulic lift, air compressor, tubewell, water tank and other equipments etc. dealership commission received by assessee is shared with M/s WDAPL and for which formula is worked out. As per formula, assessee is to pay sum of Rs. 1,000 per vehicle sold and Rs. 140 per vehicle serviced. assessee has given minimum assurance to pay commission at least for 300 to 350 vehicles per month and to send at least 900 cars for servicing per month. However, this does not change nature of business collaboration agreement and considering various other terms like appointment of manager and supervisor by payee, appointment of security personnel for maintenance and protection of premises and car by assessee and in absence of any right by way of tenancy in favour of assessee which are specifically denied, assessee cannot be considered as having paid same by way of rent only. Thus, s. 194-I cannot be attracted in such situation. Even s. 194H do not apply as payment is not directly by way of commission as envisaged in s. 194H but is only mode of sharing Revenue with payee. Thus, payment should be treated as payment to contractor within meaning of s. 194C and hence, no further liability should be enforced upon assessee herein. He further submitted that though assessee has not filed any appeal before Tribunal against impugned order, in terms of r. 27 of Tribunal Rules, assessee as respondent may support order of learned CIT(A) on any of grounds decided against him. He further submitted that payee has offered income for all years in return filed by it with ITO, Co. Circle 29(1), New Delhi. Since payee has already paid tax on amount paid by assessee in terms of Board s instruction, no further demand can be inflicted upon assessee. We have considered relevant facts, arguments advanced and also perused orders of authorities below. To clarify matter, relevant clauses of business collaboration agreement are extracted herein: "This Business Collaboration Agreement is executed at New Delhi on this 16th day of December, 1997 between: M/s West Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd., company registered under Companies Act, having its registered office at LD-52, Prakash Deep, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, through Shri Sunil Singhla, son of Shri Purshottam Dass, hereinafter referred to as party of first part. And M/s Bhasin Motors (India) (P) Ltd., company incorporated under Companies Act having its registered office at 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi, through Shri J.B. Bhasin, son of Shri G.S. Bhasin, duly authorized by Board of Directors vide Resolution No......., dt. 24th Nov., 1997 (hereinafter referred to as party of second part). Whereas party of first part is tenant/lessee of premises No. B-1, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi. Party of second part is authorized dealer and distributor of Maruti Udyog Ltd. for sale and service of Maruti Udyog Ltd. for sale and service of Maruti Cars/Vans and other vehicles etc. That parties have mutually agreed to enter into Business Collaboration Agreement on terms and conditions hereinafter set out. party of first part has offered 13,460 sq. ft. covered area and 11,200 sq. ft. approx. open area in west side portion of building and decorated for display/sale, repair, parking and service (washing and cleaning) of Maruti vehicles (as shown in Annex. C, map). party of first part has provided one generator set, one hydraulic lift, air compressor, tubewell, water tank and other equipments etc. for service/washing of Maruti vehicles. That party of second part has assured party of first part that about 6,000 vehicles per year shall be sold/delivered from premises of M/s Bhasin Motors (India) (P) Ltd. and party of second part shall pay to party of first part, sum of Rs. 1,000 per vehicle/car as commission charges. It has been further agreed between parties that in case if number of cars sold are less than 500 month in that eventuality party of second part shall be bound to make payment of 300-350 vehicles per month to party of first part @ Rs. 1,000 each vehicle. That party of second part has further assured to party of first part that it will provide about 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles each month for carrying out services (washing and cleaning) in premises and will pay @ Rs. 140 for each vehicle (car) as service charges. It has been further agreed between both parties that in case party of second part provides less than number assured as above to servicing vehicle in that eventuality party of second part will be bound to make payment of 900 (nine hundred) vehicles to party of first part of servicing charges at rate of Rs. 140 per vehicle. ** ** ** That party of first part shall provide Manager/Supervisor, and salary That party of first part shall provide Manager/Supervisor, and salary of same shall be paid by party of first part. party of first part is entitled to enhance any number of employees which may be required for supervising sale. That party of second part has assured party of first part to employ security guards and other staff for proper maintenance and protection of premises as well as for safety of cars which are displayed in premises. and 10. ** ** ** That party of second part shall have no right to permit any other person, party or firm to carry on business from premises in question as it has been categorically agreed between party of first part and party of second part that possession of premises shall remain with party of first part and party of second part is only permitted to display cars and make sale from premises. party of second part shall have no right to either claim tenancy or otherwise as it purely business collaboration agreement and party of first part shall always remain lawful possession holder thereof. That it has been further agreed between parties that sale would be directly made under supervision of Manager/Supervisor of party of first part. Party of second part has right to employ manpower at his own cost for running business and make provisions for displaying cars." It is settled law that while examining true nature of payment, nomenclature given by parties thereto though relevant but is not decisive of matter. It is seen that payee, who was in possession of certain premises had agreed to use same in this business collaboration agreement in mutual interest. payee has installed various machinery and equipments for servicing of vehicles. payee has also decorated for display, repair and parking of vehicles. qualified staff like Manager and Supervisor are provided by payee and their salaries are also borne by payee. Similarly, servicing of vehicle are done exclusively by staff of payee. Accordingly, it cannot be said that assessee merely to use premises has made all payments. While authorized dealership of vehicles remains with assessee, since it is not having qualified staff for sales and supervision of sales staff as well as servicing of vehicles, it has availed services of M/s WDAPL. payments are quantified on basis of number of vehicles sold and number of vehicles serviced. Thus, it is mode of sharing revenue between two parties. However, in such circumstance, it cannot be said that payment was either as rent simpliciter or as commission. Thus, same cannot be considered as rent within meaning of s. 194-I or as commission within meaning of s. 194H of Act. As rightly contended by Shri Chadha that though assessee has not filed appeal against impugned order, he can still support order of CIT(A) on any of grounds decided against him. We accordingly hold that payment is contractual payment pursuant to business collaboration agreement and hence, assessee was obliged to deduct tax under s. 194C only which it has done. Thus, no further liability under s. 201(1) can be fastened on assessee. We also find that as per acknowledgement of return filed by payee, amount paid by assessee is included in income and hence, same cannot be further recovered from assessee. For reasons stated above, appeals of Revenue are to be dismissed. In result, all appeals are dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. BHASIN MOTORS INDIA (P) LTD.