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>ITAT rules in favor of assessee on tax deduction for credit card transactions</h1> <h3>ACIT, Circle-76 (1), New Delhi Versus The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., (Taj Palace-Delhi)</h3> ACIT, Circle-76 (1), New Delhi Versus The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., (Taj Palace-Delhi) - TMI Issues:1. Whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on merchant discount/collection charges paid on account of credit card transactions.2. Whether there was a principal-agent relationship between the assessee and the banks in credit card transactions.3. Whether credit card commission fell under the purview of section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. Whether the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) of the Act.5. Whether the banks provided a gateway for payments to the assessee.Issue 1:The department challenged the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on merchant discount/collection charges paid on account of credit card transactions. The assessee argued that credit card commission was exempt from TDS based on a CBDT notification. The Assessing Officer held the assessee liable for TDS, resulting in a demand of Rs. 28,31,225. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that there was no requirement to deduct tax in cases of credit card payments.Issue 2:The department raised concerns about the principal-agent relationship between the assessee and the banks in credit card transactions. The Ld. AR cited judgments by the Delhi High Court and ITAT Mumbai Bench, supporting the assessee's position that there was no such relationship. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in C.I.T. vs. JDS Apparels Pvt. Ltd. was particularly relevant in establishing that the banks were not acting on behalf of the assessee but rather on behalf of the customers during credit card transactions.Issue 3:The question arose whether credit card commission fell within the scope of section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the sum retained by the banks as credit commission did not fall under section 194H, especially considering the CBDT notification. The ITAT agreed with this interpretation, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and dismissing the department's grounds of appeal.Issue 4:Regarding the liability to pay interest under section 201(1A) of the Act, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ruled that in cases where there was a bona fide belief that no tax deduction was required, the assessee should not be burdened with interest payment. The ITAT upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of a principal-agent relationship between the banks and the assessee in credit card transactions.Issue 5:The contention about whether the banks provided a gateway for payments to the assessee was addressed by referencing the judgments of the Delhi High Court and ITAT Mumbai Bench. The ITAT, following the Delhi High Court's ruling, concluded that the banks were not acting on behalf of the assessee but on behalf of the customers during credit card transactions, thereby dismissing the department's appeal.In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing the department's appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee in all issues raised.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found