Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
- βοΈ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- π Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws β


Just a moment...
Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws β


Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
ITAT adjudicated a tax deduction at source (TDS) dispute involving payments to consignee and forwarding agents (CFAs). The tribunal examined whether payments characterized as 'commission' or 'variable service charges' warranted TDS under sections 194C, 194H, and potential default under sections 201(1) and 201(1a). Key findings revealed the CFA's limited operational role, without authority to independently contract or bind the primary assessee. The tribunal determined that merely labeling payments as 'commission' does not automatically trigger TDS liability. Critically, no prior disallowances were made during scrutiny proceedings for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20, further supporting the assessee's position. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, invalidating the lower authorities' demand and finding the TDS deduction under section 194C was correctly applied.