Simran Sharma*
Decoding The Principal – Agent Relationship: An Analysis of The Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Section 194-H of The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Supreme Court of India has finally provided a clearcut answer on the pivotal question: “In the context of the sale and distribution of goods, particularly SIM cards, when does a transaction constitute a commission-based principal-agent relationship as opposed to a simple discount-based sale?” The Court’s ruling in the case of Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata and Another, 2024 INSC 148, brings to the fore the distinction between a discount given on the sale of goods and a commission paid for services rendered—two concepts that bear significant consequences for tax obligations under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicability of Section 194-H demands an analysis of the contractual nuances between franchisee or distributorship agreements and whether they fall within the scope of agency, which in turn affects the applicability of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) provisions.
Introducing The System of Tax Deduction at Source
Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is an important part of India’s taxation regime, serving as an upfront collection mechanism. It helps collect income tax at the time of transactions, such as salary payments or contractor payments. TDS prevents tax evasion, ensures a continuous revenue stream for the government, and eases the taxpayer’s burden by spreading tax collection throughout the year. TDS serves as an efficient pre-emptive taxation method, which aids in the prevention of tax evasion and ensures a steady flow of revenue to the government. TDS also helps in streamlining the tax collection process. However, the absence of a direct relationship between deductors and deductees in the TDS system can lead to complications. These include communication barriers, difficulties in verifying deductions, challenges in obtaining tax credits and correcting errors, refund issues, compliance risks, and legal complexities. This can make it difficult for deductees to confirm proper tax deposit, complicating their tax filings and liability assessments, and causing challenges for revenue authorities to ensure smooth TDS operations and compliance.
Dissecting Section 194H of the Income Tax Act 1961
The specific provisions that deal with TDS are contained within various sections under Chapter XVII-B of the Income Tax Act, starting from Section 192 to Section 194LBB. Each of these sections covers the applicable rules for TDS on different types of income, such as salaries, interest, commissions, fees for professional services, and rent, to name a few.
Specifically, Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertains to the deduction of income tax at the source on income earned by way of commission or brokerage. This section applies to any entity that is responsible for paying commission or brokerage while it specifically excludes individual persons or Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) unless their business or professional turnover exceeds the specified threshold. The income subject to TDS under this section is that which is earned as commission or brokerage. The time of deduction is when the income is credited to the payee’s account or at the time of payment, whichever is earlier.
Section 194H of the Act applies to individuals or entities responsible for making payments. The phrase “person responsible for paying” is defined in Section 204 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision outlines the following scenarios where tax deduction at source applies:
(i) Salaries (Non-Government): The employer or principal officer of a company.
(ii) Interest on Securities (Non-Government): Local authorities, corporations, or companies, including their principal officers.
(ii-a) Non-Resident Indian Payments: Authorized persons handling remittances or account credits for non-resident Indians.
(ii-b) Payments to Non-Residents: The payer or principal officer, if the payer is a company.
(iii) Other Chargeable Sums: The payer or principal officer, if the payer is a company.
(iv) Government Payments: The drawing and disbursing officer or the person responsible for crediting or paying.
(v) Non-Resident Persons: Non-resident individuals or their authorized persons or agents.
It is noteworthy that in the present case of credit or in the case of payment in cases not covered by clauses (i), (ii), (ii)(a), (ii)(b), “the person responsible for paying” is the payer himself, or if the payer is a company, the company itself and the principal officer thereof.
Explanation (i) to Section 194-H of the Act defines the expressions ‘commission’ or ‘brokerage’ as inclusive of “any payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly, by a person acting on behalf of another person for services rendered (not being professional services) or for any services in the course of buying or selling of goods or in relation to any transaction relating to any asset, valuable article or thing, not being securities”. The provision includes those commissions and brokerages as payments whether received or receivable that are stemming out of a principal-agent relationship. The principal agency relationship must be for the services rendered which should not be any professional service or for any sale transaction excluding the sale of securities.
Contract of Agency vs. Contract of Sale in Telecom Prepaid Business Models
The legal term “acting on behalf of another person” in Section 194H of the Income Tax Act 1861, implies that there is a recognized relationship of principal and agent between the person making the payment and the person receiving it. According to Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, an “agent” is someone hired to perform tasks on another’s behalf or to represent another in transactions with third parties. The individual who the agent acts for or represents is known as the “principal.” The law has vested the power with the agent to affect the principal’s relationship with third parties. This relationship is fiduciary, meaning the agent acts on the principal’s behalf and under their control, with mutual agreement. Additionally, the agent must account for their actions to the principal and is entitled to receive payment for their services.
Although there are many circumstances in which one person acts or represents another, this does not establish a principal-agent relationship. The law of agency only comes into play when someone acts or is represented on behalf of someone else in a way that impacts that person’s legal status, or more specifically, his rights or obligations against third parties. Not all middlemen who link clients and other parties are considered agents under the law. For instance, intermediaries such as distributors or franchisees may purchase products to resell as principals rather than agents.
Case Analysis:
In casu, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India, granted licenses to cellular mobile telephone service providers under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. These providers operate in different zones and are required to comply with the terms and conditions outlined in the license, as well as the guidelines set by the Department of Technology and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).The service providers have the flexibility to choose their business models for interactions with third parties, as long as they comply with the statutory requirements.
The agreement between the telecom service provider and the franchisee/distributor included various clauses. Illustratively, the exclusivity clause, where franchisees/distributors are appointed exclusively to market prepaid services and manage retail outlets. There is also a statutory compliance and indemnity condition requiring adherence to statutory, regulatory, and municipal requirements, and indemnification of the service provider against any non-compliance costs. Additionally, there are operating standards to conform to the policies set by the service provider, with the obligation to modify premises as mutually agreed upon, at the franchisee/distributor’s own cost. The inventory management clause requires franchisees/distributors to maintain sufficient stock of prepaid products, adhering to guidelines from the service provider, without ownership rights over the inventory.
Herein the financial model was that franchisees/distributors pay for prepaid products in advance at a discounted rate, assuming the risk of unsold inventory, and have the freedom to set resale prices. It’s important to note that the discussion in the Bharati Cellular case specifically pertained to the prepaid business model. In this model, customers pay in advance for mobile services through recharge vouchers or top-up cards available at retail outlets.
The court recognized that the concept of sale has evolved. Even if the seller imposes various restrictions on the buyer, such as price fixation, submission of accounts, or selling in a specific area, it is still considered a sale transaction. These restrictions do not convert a contract of sale into one of agency because, despite the limitations, the transaction remains a sale and subject to all the aspects of a sale. In the aforementioned contractual arrangement, it would still be considered a sale despite the imposed restrictions. According to the Halsbury Laws of England, an essential right of an agent is the right to be reimbursed for all expenses incurred in the reasonable performance of the agency. However, in the present circumstances, this condition was reversed.
Understanding the difference between trade discount and commission
It is noteworthy that the Revenue did not claim that tax should be deducted on the difference between the printed price and the discounted price of prepaid products offered to franchisees/distributors. This suggests an understanding that the discounted price is not a commission or brokerage, but rather a trade discount. Franchisees/distributors have the autonomy to sell products below the printed price, indicating their control over the final sale price and their income.
According to the statute, the obligation to deduct tax at source arises when actual payment is made or when income is credited to the payee’s account, whichever occurs earlier. However, in this case, the telecom service provider (assessee) neither directly pays nor credits income to the franchisee/distributor. The income of the franchisee/distributor is realized at the point of sale to the retailer or end-user, based on the difference between the sale price (determined by the franchisee/distributor) and the discounted price at which they purchased the prepaid products.
The assessee does not pay or credit any amount that could be considered a commission or brokerage to the franchisee/distributor. Since the franchisee/distributor’s income is generated from sales to third parties and not from the assessee, Section 194-H, which pertains to commission or brokerage payments, does not apply. It is clear from this analysis that the relationship between the assessee and the franchisee/distributor does not involve the typical payment of commission or brokerage that would trigger the tax deduction requirement under Section 194-H.
A commission is a fee paid for services rendered, usually a percentage of sales made on behalf of another party. In contrast, a discount is a reduction from the full price offered by the seller to the buyer. The sale of SIM cards at a discounted rate to distributors does not constitute a commission since the distributors purchase the goods for resale, not acting as agents providing services to the manufacturer. They simply buy and resell to end customers without representing the manufacturer in an agent’s capacity. This interpretation aligns with Section 194-H of the Act, which examines the existence of a principal-agent relationship where the representative acts in a manner that makes the principal directly liable, different from an employer-employee relationship.
Author’s Remarks
The court’s ruling has brought clarity to the controversy surrounding Section 194H of the Act. In the transactions under consideration, there is no involvement of “commission or brokerage” because the distributor does not provide services to the manufacturer but rather purchases goods for resale. The retailers also engage in a straightforward buying and reselling process. When applying Section 194-H, the key consideration is whether a principal-agent relationship exists, where one party acts on behalf of the other and incurs direct liability for the principal. This is different from a master-servant relationship where liability is vicarious. The nature of the relationship can be further understood by referring to Section 182 of the Contract Act, which defines an agency relationship as one where an agent performs services as the legal representative of the principal.
In the case where the sale occurs on a principal-to-principal basis, which is distinct from a principal – agent relationship where an agent is specifically engaged to provide services for the principal. The legislature recognizes this distinction by providing an exception for BSNL and MTNL regarding commissions or brokerage paid to PCO franchisees.
The reasoning provided in this case helps in streamlining the tax collection process. This is because in absence of a direct relationship between deductors and deductees in the TDS system can lead to complications and increase the costs associated with the tax collection process by complicating it.
[Simran Sharma is a fourth year B.A.,LL.B (Trade and Investment Law Hons.) student at National Law University, Jodhpur]
Conclusion:
The landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata and Another has not only provided clarity on the interpretation of Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but has also shed light on the nuanced distinction between commission-based principal-agent relationships and discount-based sales in the sale and distribution of goods, particularly SIM cards.
Through a meticulous analysis of the contractual agreements between telecom service providers and franchisees/distributors, the Court delineated the boundaries between agency relationships and straightforward sales transactions. This distinction holds significant implications for tax obligations under Section 194-H and the applicability of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) provisions.
Furthermore, the judgment underscores the importance of understanding the intricacies of tax deduction mechanisms like TDS, which play a pivotal role in India’s taxation regime. While TDS serves as a robust tool for preventing tax evasion and ensuring a steady revenue stream for the government, the absence of a direct relationship between deductors and deductees can lead to complications and increase the costs associated with the tax collection process.
By elucidating the differences between trade discounts and commissions, the Court’s ruling provides valuable insights into the interpretation of tax laws and their application in complex business models, such as telecom prepaid services. This clarity not only benefits taxpayers and revenue authorities but also contributes to the overall efficiency of the tax collection process.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s analysis of Section 194-H has not only resolved a longstanding ambiguity but has also provided a framework for future interpretations, contributing to a more transparent and streamlined tax regime in India.
****
