The Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS-1, Mumbai v. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd - 2019-LL-0923-42

Citation	2019-LL-0923-42
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS-1, Mumbai
Respondent Name	Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	23/09/2019
Assessment Year	2010-11
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	bank guarantee • tds • display rights
Bot Summary:	This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges the order dated 27 th May, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue has urged the following question of law for our consideration :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2019 15:57:44 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 743-17-ITXA-194.doc TDS was deductible u/s 194H by the assessee company on payment of bank guarantee charges and thereby clearly ignoring the fact that for this service the bank is nothing but a constructive agent of the assessee company Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts paid by the respondent for acquisition of hoarding / display rights would not require TDS under Section 194I of the Act. In the above view, this question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Regarding question :- The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law at above. Both the parties are agreed that the impugned order of the Tribunal needs to be set aside and the appeal be restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer s order seems to hold that Section 194I of the Act applies to the premium paid for the site of the hoarding while the Tribunal proceeds on the basis that the TDS is being sought on purchases made for putting up the hoardings. In the above view, the impugned order is set aside to the above extent and the appeal is restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Uday S. Jagtap 743-17-ITXA-194=.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS-1, Mumbai Appellant v/s. M/s. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for appellant Mr. S. Sriram i/b Sriram Sridharan for respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges order dated 27 th May, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). appeal relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Revenue has urged following question of law for our consideration :- (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in holding that no 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2019 15:57:44 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 743-17-ITXA-194=.doc TDS was deductible u/s 194H by assessee company on payment of bank guarantee charges and thereby clearly ignoring fact that for this service bank is nothing but constructive agent of assessee company? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in holding that amounts paid by respondent for acquisition of hoarding / display rights would not require TDS under Section 194I of Act. 3. Regarding question (a) :- It is agreed position between parties that this issue stands concluded against Revenue and in favour of respondent Assessee by decision of this Court in CIT Vs. L&T 2019, 260 Taxmann 271. In above view, this question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding question (b) :- appeal is admitted on substantial question of law at (b) above. appeal is taken up for final disposal. Both parties are agreed that impugned order of Tribunal needs to be set aside and appeal be restored to Tribunal for fresh consideration. This for reason that it has 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2019 15:57:44 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 743-17-ITXA-194=.doc not considered submission of both sides, in reaching its conclusion. 5. We are in agreement with reasons made for joint request by parties. We note that there is no clarity in impugned order with regard to which of consideration paid would be subject to TDS under Section 194I of Act. Assessing Officer s order seems to hold that Section 194I of Act applies to premium paid for site of hoarding while Tribunal proceeds on basis that TDS is being sought on purchases made for putting up hoardings. 6. In above view, impugned order is set aside to above extent and appeal is restored to Tribunal for fresh consideration. 7. Appeal disposed of in above terms. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2019 15:57:44 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS-1, Mumbai v. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd

Metadata

Judgment