TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds assessee's win on TDS liability for RCDF payments. Payments not subject to TDS under sections 194H or 194J.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of It Jaipur Versus M/s Sikar Jhunjhunu Zila Utpadak Sangh</h3> Commissioner of It Jaipur Versus M/s Sikar Jhunjhunu Zila Utpadak Sangh - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to Tribunal's judgment allowing the appeal by the assessee.2. Substantial questions of law framed by the counsel for the appellant regarding TDS deductions under sections 194H and 194J.3. Comparison with a previous court decision in a similar case.4. Interpretation of payments made to RCDF for services and applicability of TDS provisions.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision that favored the assessee. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not in default under section 201(1) for not deducting tax under section 194H on commission/brokerage payments to milk societies. The counsel framed substantial questions of law regarding the liability to deduct TDS under sections 194H and 194J on various payments.2. The court compared the current case with a previous decision involving similar issues. In the previous case, the court analyzed payments made by the appellant to RCDF for various services, including managerial services and marketing support. The court concluded that the payments were in the nature of fees for professional or technical services, subject to section 194J. However, the court also noted that section 40(a)(ia) did not apply to payments made before the end of the previous year.3. The Tribunal, in the current case, observed that the Department failed to demonstrate the rendering of managerial services by RCDF to the assessee in exchange for the cess payments. As RCDF was an apex cooperative body, the Tribunal held that the payments were not liable for TDS under sections 194H or 194J. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the impugned payments to RCDF were not subject to TDS.4. Based on the comparison with the previous decision and the Tribunal's findings, the court answered the issue in favor of the assessee and against the department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee regarding the TDS liability on payments made to RCDF for various services.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
