<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (2) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35556</link>
    <description>Discount retained by prepaid distributors was treated as commission or brokerage under Section 194H because the contractual terms showed an agency arrangement: distributors paid in advance, received stock at a fixed transfer price, could resell at their own price, and were required to return unsold stock on termination. The Court held that Section 194H is not limited to commission paid separately in cash or cheque; it also covers amounts received or receivable by a person acting on behalf of another. On that footing, the distributors were acting as links in service delivery on behalf of the assessee, so tax deduction at source was required and the assessee was liable as an assessee in default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 10:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35556</link>
      <description>Discount retained by prepaid distributors was treated as commission or brokerage under Section 194H because the contractual terms showed an agency arrangement: distributors paid in advance, received stock at a fixed transfer price, could resell at their own price, and were required to return unsold stock on termination. The Court held that Section 194H is not limited to commission paid separately in cash or cheque; it also covers amounts received or receivable by a person acting on behalf of another. On that footing, the distributors were acting as links in service delivery on behalf of the assessee, so tax deduction at source was required and the assessee was liable as an assessee in default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>