<?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>2022 (12) TMI 1591 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465568</link>
    <description>Discounts/incentives allowed to distributors on sale of products raised the issue whether tax was deductible u/s 194H. Relying on the distribution agreement and prior co-ordinate bench ruling, the Tribunal held the distributor purchased and resold in its own right, with risks and rewards of ownership passing on delivery; the relationship was principal-to-principal and the discount was a price reduction, not commission/brokerage. Consequently, no TDS was required u/s 194H and the payer could not be treated as an assessee-in-default. Provision/payment for delayed payments to micro and small enterprises raised the issue whether TDS was deductible u/s 194A. Following its earlier order, the Tribunal held the amount had an immediate nexus with trade liability and formed part of purchase consideration, not &quot;interest&quot; u/s 2(28A); hence, no liability u/s 201(1)/201(1A) arose and the revenue appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 10:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1591 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465568</link>
      <description>Discounts/incentives allowed to distributors on sale of products raised the issue whether tax was deductible u/s 194H. Relying on the distribution agreement and prior co-ordinate bench ruling, the Tribunal held the distributor purchased and resold in its own right, with risks and rewards of ownership passing on delivery; the relationship was principal-to-principal and the discount was a price reduction, not commission/brokerage. Consequently, no TDS was required u/s 194H and the payer could not be treated as an assessee-in-default. Provision/payment for delayed payments to micro and small enterprises raised the issue whether TDS was deductible u/s 194A. Following its earlier order, the Tribunal held the amount had an immediate nexus with trade liability and formed part of purchase consideration, not &quot;interest&quot; u/s 2(28A); hence, no liability u/s 201(1)/201(1A) arose and the revenue appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>