https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416832 The Court held that bank guarantee commission is not akin to commission paid to an agent but rather bank charges for services, not requiring deduction at source under Section 194H. It found no principal agent relationship between the assessee and the bank for tax deduction at source, as the bank's role was for banking services, not as a commission. Relying on previous judgments, the Court dismissed the appeal, aligning with established legal principles that bank charges for services do not constitute commission or brokerage, thus ruling against the revenue. en-us Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Jan 2022 09:49:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416832 The Court held that bank guarantee commission is not akin to commission paid to an agent but rather bank charges for services, not requiring deduction at source under Section 194H. It found no principal agent relationship between the assessee and the bank for tax deduction at source, as the bank's role was for banking services, not as a commission. Relying on previous judgments, the Court dismissed the appeal, aligning with established legal principles that bank charges for services do not constitute commission or brokerage, thus ruling against the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416832