Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on TDS dispute</h1> <h3>Tata Sky Limited Versus Asst. CIT (TDS), Range 3 (1), [Now Jt. CIT (OSD) (TDS) Range 2 (3) ], Mumbai</h3> Tata Sky Limited Versus Asst. CIT (TDS), Range 3 (1), [Now Jt. CIT (OSD) (TDS) Range 2 (3) ], Mumbai - [2018] 68 ITR (Trib) 162 Issues Involved:1. Levy of demand under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Treatment of discount on sale of Set-Top Boxes (STBs) and Recharge Coupon Vouchers (RCVs) as commission income under Section 194H.3. Levy of interest under Section 201(1A) for non-deduction of tax at source.4. Applicability of Section 194C vs. Section 194J for payments to Installation Service Providers and for Document Management Charges.Detailed Analysis:1. Levy of Demand under Section 201(1) / 201(1A):The assessee contested the demand of Rs. 5,36,33,572 raised under Section 201(1) / 201(1A). The tribunal examined whether the assessee was in default for non-deduction of tax at source on discounts and incentives allowed to distributors/dealers. The tribunal concluded that the relationship between the assessee and the distributors was principal to principal, and the discounts were not in the nature of commission, thus not attracting Section 194H. Consequently, the demand under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) was not justified.2. Treatment of Discount on Sale of STBs and RCVs as Commission Income:The AO treated the discounts on STBs and RCVs as commission under Section 194H, requiring TDS deduction. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing that the distributors acted on behalf of the assessee, thus creating a principal-agent relationship. However, the tribunal overturned this, referencing several High Court decisions, including CIT vs. Qatar Airways and CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd., which held that discounts between the MRP and the sale price to distributors do not constitute commission. The tribunal emphasized that the relationship was principal to principal, and no TDS under Section 194H was required.3. Levy of Interest under Section 201(1A):The CIT(A) had directed the TDS officer to levy interest under Section 201(1A) up to the date of the deductees filing their returns. The tribunal found this direction irrelevant since it concluded that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194H. Thus, no interest under Section 201(1A) was applicable.4. Applicability of Section 194C vs. Section 194J for Payments:- Installation Service Providers (ISPs): The AO argued that payments to ISPs for installing DTH apparatus required technical expertise and should fall under Section 194J. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the installation work did not require specialized technical skills and was more akin to a works contract under Section 194C. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view, referencing the ITAT decision in Bharat Business Channels Ltd., which held that basic installation services do not attract Section 194J.- Document Management Charges: The AO contended that document management services involved technical expertise, thus falling under Section 194J. The CIT(A) found that these services were routine and repetitive, not requiring specialized skills, and thus fell under Section 194C. The tribunal agreed, citing the ITAT decision in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which held that basic document management services are subject to Section 194C.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, concluding that the discounts on STBs and RCVs were not commission, and thus, no TDS under Section 194H was required. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that payments to ISPs and for document management services fell under Section 194C, not Section 194J. Consequently, the assessee was not in default under Section 201(1) / 201(1A), and no interest under Section 201(1A) was applicable. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found