2016 (5) TMI 1141 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on TDS issues

Income Tax Officer (TDS) -3 (4), Mumbai Versus M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the relationship between the assessee and distributors was principal to principal, not principal ... TDS u/s 194H - payments in the form of discounts/rebates/incentives on MRP given by the assessee to the distributors in the course of selling its goods - whether the relationship between the assessee and distributors is in the nature of principal to principal and that therefore the assessee-company was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H? - Held that:- Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2009-10 & 2010- 11 we hold that the discount on MRP granted by the assessee to distributors at the time of sale of the drugs/medicines (i.e. goods) does not fall within the ambit of section 194H of the Act and therefore no tax was required to be deducted at source thereon and therefore the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act and charged interest under section 201(1A) of the Act.- Decided against revenue TDS u/s 194J - ‘Assessee in default’ for not deducting tax at source on sitting fees paid to the Directors - Held that:- We find that the issue of whether or not the assesseecompany is liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) under section 194J(ba) of the Act in respect of sitting fees paid to Directors as per the amendment thereto w.e.f. 01.07.2012 has been considered and held in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, thus we hold that since the instant appeal is for A.Y. 2010-11 which is prior to A.Y. 2013-14, from when the amendment to section 194J(ba) comes into force w.e.f. 01.07.2012, we hold that no tax is deductible at source on payment of sitting fees to Directors and the assessee cannot be held as ‘assessee in default’ under section 201(1) of the Act or be charged interest under section 201(1a) of the Act. - Decided against revenue Issues Involved:1. Relationship between the assessee and distributors: Principal to Principal vs. Principal to Agent.2. Applicability of TDS under section 194H on discounts/incentives/rebates.3. Applicability of TDS on Directors' sitting fees under section 194J(ba).Detailed Analysis:1. Relationship between the Assessee and Distributors:Issue: Whether the relationship between the assessee-company and its distributors is that of principal to principal or principal to agent.Findings:The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the relationship between the assessee and the distributors was one of principal to agent, primarily because the assessee fixed the MRP margins and bore the risk of expired medicines. The AO concluded that the discounts/incentives given to distributors were essentially commission payments, necessitating TDS under section 194H.Judgment:The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, where it was held that the relationship was of principal to principal. The Tribunal noted that the distributors bought goods from the assessee and sold them independently, bearing all risks and rewards. Therefore, the discounts/incentives did not amount to commission payments under section 194H. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on these payments, and the AO's conclusion was overturned.2. Applicability of TDS under Section 194H on Discounts/Incentives/Rebates:Issue: Whether the discounts/incentives/rebates given to distributors qualify as commission payments requiring TDS under section 194H.Findings:The AO held that these payments were commission within the meaning of section 194H, as they were part of a mutually beneficial pricing structure and thus, income.Judgment:The Tribunal, following its earlier judgment, ruled that the discounts on MRP granted to distributors did not fall within the ambit of section 194H. The relationship between the assessee and the distributors was confirmed as principal to principal, and no TDS was required. Thus, the assessee could not be held as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) for non-deduction of tax, and no interest under section 201(1A) was chargeable. Grounds 1(i) and 1(ii) of the Revenue’s appeal were dismissed.3. Applicability of TDS on Directors' Sitting Fees under Section 194J(ba):Issue: Whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on directors' sitting fees as per the amendment to section 194J(ba) effective from 01.07.2012.Findings:The AO held that the sitting fees paid to directors were in the nature of professional fees, requiring TDS deduction under section 194J(ba). The CIT(A) disagreed, noting the amendment was effective only from 01.07.2012 and not applicable to the assessment years in question.Judgment:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing its prior ruling for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. It concluded that the amendment to section 194J(ba) was prospective and not applicable to the relevant assessment years. Therefore, no TDS was required on directors' sitting fees for the assessment years in question, and the assessee could not be held as 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) or charged interest under section 201(1A). Grounds 1(iii) and 1(iv) of the Revenue’s appeal were dismissed.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeals for both assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, affirming the CIT(A)’s orders and holding that:- The relationship between the assessee and distributors was principal to principal.- No TDS was required on discounts/incentives/rebates given to distributors.- No TDS was required on directors' sitting fees for the relevant assessment years before the amendment to section 194J(ba).