2022 (1) TMI 336 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee on Tax Deduction Issue

M/s Elymer International Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-8 (1), New Delhi.

The Tribunal held that there was no obligation for the assessee to deduct tax at source on the bank guarantee fee, following a similar Delhi High Court ... TDS u/s 194H - guarantee fee paid to the bank - Addition u/s 40a(ia) - HELD THAT:- The assessee in the case before us could not have been saddled with any obligation to deduct tax at source on the bank guarantee fee that was charged by the bank for rendering banking services in the normal course of its business i.e standing as a guarantee to third parties qua the contractual obligations of the assessee. As in the case M/S. NAVNIRMAN HIGHWAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 656 - ITAT DELHI] as bank guarantee commission partook the character of interest u/s 2(28A) of the Act and as such, exemption provided u/s 194A(3)(iii) qua such payment was available to the assessee, therefore, no obligation on the said count too was cast upon the assessee to deduct tax at source on the said amount. Backed by its aforesaid observations, the Tribunal had vacated the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) that was made by the department by holding the assessee as being in default for not having deducted tax at source on the amount of bank guarantee fee u/s 194H. Also see KOTAK SECURITIES LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI [2012 (2) TMI 77 - ITAT MUMBAI] Both the lower authorities had erred in treating the assessee as being in default for not having deducted tax at source on the amount of bank guarantee fee u/s 194H of the Act. Accordingly, de-hors any obligation on the assessee to deduct tax at source on the amount of bank guarantee fees within the meaning of section 194H of Act, no disallowance of the aforesaid amount could have been made u/s 40(a)(ia) - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of deduction of bank guarantee fee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the assessee company against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y 2013-14. The assessee contested the disallowance of deduction of &8377; 57,75,629/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.2. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had paid a bank guarantee fee and failed to deduct tax at source on it. The AO disallowed the deduction as the fee did not fall under the definition of 'Interest' and was not covered by the exemption notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.3. The assessee argued that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source on the bank guarantee fee. They relied on a judgment by the Delhi High Court in a similar case. The Senior Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders.4. The Tribunal analyzed the issue of whether the bank guarantee fee was subject to tax deduction at source. Referring to the Delhi High Court judgment, it concluded that no obligation existed for the assessee to deduct tax on such fees. The Tribunal also cited a previous case where it was held that bank guarantee commission did not fall under the scope of commission for tax deduction purposes.5. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance was vacated, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.6. The Tribunal dismissed the general grounds of appeal not pressed by the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on the specified date.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the arguments presented, the authorities' decisions, and the Tribunal's final ruling on the issue of disallowance of deduction of bank guarantee fee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.