Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-0722-40]

Citation 2019-LL-0722-40
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8
Respondent Name Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/07/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags deduction of tax at source • brokerage and commission
Bot Summary: 40a(i) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the discount allowed by the assessee to the distributors in respect of starter packs and Page 1 of 3 ITA.603. 2017.doc recharge coupons for its prepaid services amounted to payment by the assessee of commission or brokerage within the meaning of Section 194H of the Act as the distributors are acting as agents of the assessee 2. The respondent assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act. The first question pertains to disallowance under section 40a(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had deducted tax at source in terms of section 194H of the Act while making certain payments. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment allowed the assessee s appeal on two grounds. 2017.doc independently examined the nature of the transaction and come to the conclusion that when the transaction was between two persons on principal to principal basis, deduction of tax at source as per section 194H of the Act, would not be made since the payment was not for commission or brokerage. The Tribunal in the impugned judgement, came to the conclusion that the assessee had not earned any exempt income and there is no question of disallowance under section 14A that would arise.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.603 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 8 Appellant Vs Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for Appellant Mr.R.Murlidharan with Mr.B.G. Yewale I/b M/s.Rajesh Shah & Co. for Respondent CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: JULY 22, 2019 P.C.: 1. This appeal is filed by Revenue challenging judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. following question is presented for our consideration: (i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law ITAT was justified in deleting disallowance made by AO of Rs.263,77,08,145/- u/s. 40a(i) of Act, without appreciating fact that discount allowed by assessee to distributors in respect of starter packs and Page 1 of 3 ITA.603.2017.doc recharge coupons for its prepaid services amounted to payment by assessee of commission or brokerage within meaning of Section 194H of Act as distributors are acting as agents of assessee? 2. In separate order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.702 of 2017 concerning same assessee, similar question was examined and rejected by making following observations: 3. respondent assessee is company registered under Companies Act. issues arise in relation to Assessment Year 2007-2008. first question pertains to disallowance under section 40a(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, act ) on ground that according to Assessing Officer, assessee had deducted tax at source in terms of section 194H of Act while making certain payments. Tribunal in impugned judgment allowed assessee s appeal on two grounds. Firstly, that order under section 201 of Act was passed holding assessment to be in default of deduction of tax at source. In appeal, Commissioner had allowed assessee s appeal against which Revenue had not carried issue further. Even on merits, Tribunal was of view that payment was made on principal to principal basis and was not payment of principal to agent. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for parties and having perused documents on record, we do not find any error in view of Tribunal. Tribunal, as noted, besides holding that Commissioner s order setting aside order passed u/s 201 was not carried in appeal, had also Page 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2019 11:02:02 ::: ITA.603.2017.doc independently examined nature of transaction and come to conclusion that when transaction was between two persons on principal to principal basis, deduction of tax at source as per section 194H of Act, would not be made since payment was not for commission or brokerage. 4. Coming to second and third questions, same emanates from disallowance sought to be made by Revenue under section 14A of Act. Tribunal in impugned judgement, came to conclusion that assessee had not earned any exempt income and there is, therefore, no question of disallowance under section 14A that would arise. Tribunal had relied on decision of Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 5. In view of such facts, we find no error in view of Tribunal. decision of Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest (supra) has been followed by this Court on numerous occasions. 3. In result, this appeal is dismissed. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) Page 3 of 3 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd
Report Error