2017 (5) TMI 350 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal on principal-agent relationship, payments not commission. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals due to a lack of a principal-agent relationship and ruling that payments to ... TDS u/s 194H - non deduction of tds on payments made by assessee to other race clubs - relationship of ‘agent’ and ‘principal’ - assessee paid commission at 23% of its income as per the agreement between assessee and other clubs - Held that:- CIT-A in AYs. 2001-02 to 2008-09 fairly concluded that the nature of transaction on account of inter-venue betting between HRC and other clubs is on ‘principal’ to ‘principal’ basis and hence, the demand u/s. 201(1A) did not survive. Thus as here is no ‘agent-principal’ relationship and provisions of Section 194H are not attracted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Whether delay in filing appeals can be condonedRs.Whether the payments made by the assessee to other race clubs constitute commission under Section 194HRs.Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for not deducting TDS is justifiedRs.Analysis:1. Delay in filing appeals: The Revenue filed appeals with a delay of nineteen days, attributing it to late receipt of authorization and busy schedules due to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the reasons provided by the Revenue.2. Nature of payments to other race clubs: The main issue revolved around whether the payments made by the assessee to other race clubs constituted commission under Section 194H. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amounts under Section 40(a)(ia) for not deducting TDS, contending that there was a principal-agent relationship. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT disagreed, emphasizing that no such relationship existed, as the other clubs were not acting on behalf of the assessee race club. The ITAT upheld that the payments did not fall under the purview of commission under Section 194H.3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia): The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) by concluding that since there was no liability to deduct TDS, the disallowance was not sustainable. The decision was supported by previous orders where the Revenue did not prefer any appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals and dismissed them, upholding the decision of the CIT(A).In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of a principal-agent relationship and the inapplicability of Section 194H to the payments made by the assessee to other race clubs. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed based on the findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT in previous years, where similar issues were addressed and decided in favor of the assessee.