Income Tax : Section 194H amendment raises TDS threshold for commission or brokerage payments from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000, effective from Apr...
Income Tax : Finance Bill 2025 proposes new TDS thresholds for various sections, including interest, dividends, and commissions, effective Apri...
Income Tax : Important TDS rate changes from October 1, 2024, affecting insurance, rent, commissions, mutual funds, and e-commerce. Learn about...
Income Tax : Explore the Supreme Court interpretation of Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, analyzing the distinction between commissio...
Income Tax : Dive into the intricacies of TDS under Sections 194C, 194H, 194J, and explore their critical relation with Section 194M. Clear ins...
Income Tax : Understand Section 194H of the Income-tax Act: It mandates a 5% TDS on commission or brokerage payments to residents, soon reducin...
Income Tax : Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under section 194H as relationship between e-commerce platform and assessee was not of an ...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi High Court allowed the petition for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remitted the matter back to CIT(A) so that assessee can file necessary documents with regard to disallowance made u...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court rules in favor of Vodafone Idea Limited, stating no TDS is required on payments received by distributors/franc...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court rules in favor of Bharti Airtel Ltd, stating distributor discounts are not subject to TDS under Section 194 of ...
Income Tax : TDS on agents commission reduced from 5% to 2% as per the Finance Bill 2024. New rate effective from October 1, 2024, under Sectio...
Income Tax : Law Related to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on payments by television channels and publishing houses to advertisement companies f...
It is well settled in law that a tax withholding liability is a vicarious liability, as a part of tax collection mechanism, in the sense that when there is no primary liability of the taxpayer, proxy liability of the tax deductor also does not survive. In a situation like the one, we are in seisin of, in which the CBDT itself accepts that there is hardly any primary tax liability of the recipients of income.
Section 194H talks about the payment to a recipient which is the income by way of commission or brokerage. It does not require that the relationship between the payer and the payee should be of a principal and agent. The Explanation to section 194 elaborates on the terms ‘commission or brokerage’ by including any payment received or receivable directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another person. Thus, it is clear that the provisions of section 194H do not require any formal contract of agency.
Commission paid to the credit card companies cannot be considered as falling within the purview of S.194H. Even though the definition of the term commission or brokerage used in the said section is an inclusive definition, it is clear that the liability to make TDS under the said section arises only when a person acts behalf of another person.
At time when query was raised under the head ‘Selling & Distribution Expenditure’, had there been insistence that TDS was required to be deducted and the amount specified to the tune of Rs. 22,70,869 was not required to be allowed as Trade Incentive without deducting TDS, the same ought to have been reflected somewhere in the computation of income and that would have bearing on the computation itself.
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee herein is a IATA agent and it is authorised to sell air tickets at a price range that are usually fixed by the airline companies. It is also a fact that the competition between different airline companies has increased due to presence of a number of airline companies and the same has resulted in fixation of ticket rates at different levels at different points of time. Accordingly, it appears that the IATA agents are given option to fix the ticket rates within the maximum and minimum range that are fixed by the airline companies.
The respondent in this civil appeal is Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association and the Members of the said Association are licensed Stamp Vendors. We are satisfied that 0.50% to 4% discount given to the Stamp Vendors is for purchasing the stamps in bulk quantity and the said discount is in the nature of cash discount.
No TDS was required to be made because payment of commission are made to non-resident overseas agent. As such no income is arising to the non-resident agent in India. So, no TDS is deductible u/s 194H of the Act, which is applicable for resident Indians only, even the provisions of section 195 is not applicable as payments are made to non-resident overseas agents for the services rendered outside India.
In the instant case before us also, the assessee parted with a portion of his commission received from the builder for helping the intending buyers of flats. In other words, the purchasers received discount in the purchase price .There is nothing to suggest that the purchasers of flats rendered any service to the assessee rather the assessee rendered services to the intending purchasers. In the light of view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their aforesaid decision in Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd(supra),especially when the Revenue have not placed before us any material ,controverting the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A),holding that the provisions of section 1 94H are not attracted while making payments to the aforesaid intending purchasers of flats. Consequently, provisions of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable.
Kotak Securities Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – When we look at the connotations of expression ‘commission or brokerage’ in its cognate sense, as in the light of the principle of noscitur a sociis as we are obliged to, in our considered view, scope of expression ‘commission’, for this purpose, will be confined to ‘an allowance, recompense or reward made to agents, factors and brokers and others for effecting sales and carrying out business transactions’ and shall not extend to the payments, such as ‘bank guarantee commission’, which are in the nature of fees for services rendered or product offered by the recipient of such payments on principal to principal basis.
Recently, an opinion was sought from me by a client regarding TDS implications under Chapter XVII-B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in respect of merchant service fees payable in the course of settlement of credit card transactions for the purchase of goods / services. In the aforesaid transactions, the functions of the relevant entities may be briefly discussed as follows :
