2016 (5) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned authorities below erred in concluding that the amounts paid to Shri Chinnaswamy Raju ("the payee") is a commission covered by section 194-H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when no such conclusion was possible from the sale deeds concluded between the appellant and the payee. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) having given a finding that the payee has signed the sale deeds as confirmed party erred in concluding that the payee had no interest in the land and that he was a mere mediator facilitating the sale. 4) The learned authorities below erred in determining the nature of the consideration as commission covered by section 194-H of the Act by placing reliance on how the payee has shown the receipt in his tax return. Wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri T.Ramachandra ii. Shri H.V.Nagendrappa iii. Shri B.C.Mannoji Rao iv. Smt. N.Sujatha v. Shri N.Jaganatha Rao vi. Shri Srinivasa Rao vii. Shri Sudhakar Rao viii. Shri N.Venkobarao Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) [DCIT(TDS] noticed from the agreement between Shri Chinnaswamy Raju and Shri Mannoji Rao, owner of land admeasuring 2 acres 20 odd guntas that Shri Chinnaswamy Raju was only a middleman facilitating the transaction. Therefore, DCIT(TDS) was of the opinion that payments made by the assessee-company to Shri Chinnawamy Raju are only in the nature of brokerage or commission coming within the ambit of sec.194H of the IT Act,1961 and held the assessee-company as in default for not deduction of tax at source on su....