https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188726 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of bank guarantee charges as "commission" under Section 194H and the consequent interest deletion under Section 201(1A) for the assessment year 2010-11. Relying on the precedent set by the Mumbai ITAT decision in Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of contradictory rulings. The Tribunal affirmed that no TDS deduction was required on bank guarantee charges and that the interest deletion was in accordance with the law, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee. en-us Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188726 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of bank guarantee charges as "commission" under Section 194H and the consequent interest deletion under Section 201(1A) for the assessment year 2010-11. Relying on the precedent set by the Mumbai ITAT decision in Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of contradictory rulings. The Tribunal affirmed that no TDS deduction was required on bank guarantee charges and that the interest deletion was in accordance with the law, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188726