Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (12) TMI 1331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual is prop. of M/s. Ratnavali Jewels, engaged in the trading of selling products on ecommerce platforms like Amazon, Flipkart and Snapdeal etc. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for complete scrutiny for the reason "Large Commission Expenses and Low Net Profit". During the year under consideration the assessee filed his return of income on 09.02.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 17, 45,090/-. During the assessment proceedings it was observed by the AO that the turnover of the assessee during the previous year was Rs. 1, 25, 92,493/- and Rs. 2, 94, 62,792/- for the current year under consideration, hence the assessee was under obligation to deduct T.D.S. u/s. 194H of the Act @ 10% on commission payments made to the e-commerce platforms mentioned (supra). Consequently, applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallowance @ 30% amounting to Rs. 30,18,426/- was made. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal bef....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o section 194H; (ii) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; Commission or brokerage. 194H. Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying, on or after the 1st day of June, 2001, to a resident, any income by way of commission (not being insurance commission referred to in section 194D) or brokerage, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment of such income in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of two per cent : Provided that no deduction shall be made ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such income in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of two per cent. Now, as observed in the present case, payments are being received by e-commerce platforms only and in turn after various deductions, it will reach to the account of the assessee. Here the mechanism provided in the section is failed and beyond the control of the assessee. Similar situation was being considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Make My Trip India (P). Ltd. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi),wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "The decision in CIT v. JDS Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 139/370 ITR 454 (Delhi) holds that in a similar kind of transaction, the amount retained by the bank is a fee charged for having rendered banking services and 'cannot be treated as a commission or brokerage paid in course of use of any services by a person acting on behalf of another for buying or selling of goods.' The Tribunal has in the instant case, rightly held that the services provided by the payment gateway is such that the charges collected by it has to be nece....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of any services by a person acting on behalf of another for buying or selling of goods. The intention of the legislature is to include and treat commission or brokerage paid when a third person interacts between the seller and the buyer as an agent and thereby renders services in the course of buying and/or selling of goods. This happens when there is a middleman or an agent who interacts on behalf of one of the parties, helps the buyer/seller to meet, or participates in the negotiations or transactions resulting in the contract for buying and selling of goods. Thus, the requirement of an agent and principal relationship. This is the exact purport and the rationale behind the provision. The bank in question is not concerned with buying or selling of goods or even with the reason and cause as to why the card was swiped. It is not bothered or concerned with the quality, price, nature, quantum, etc. of the goods bought/sold. The bank merely provides banking services in the form of payment and subsequently collects the payment. The amount punched in the swiping machine is credited to the account of the retailer by the acquiring bank, i.e. H in this case, after retaining a small portion....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... question is not concerned with buying or selling of goods. It is not bothered or concerned with the quality, price, nature, quantum, etc. of the goods bought/sold. The aforesaid principles and interpretations can apply to taxing statutes. In the present case, the said principle should be applied as ecommerce platform would necessarily have acted as per law and it is not the case of the revenue that the e-commerce platform had not paid taxes on their income. It is not a case of loss of revenue as such or a case where the recipient did not pay their taxes. 8. Moreover, the assessee also filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences, i.e. copy of form no. 26A obtained from Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. And Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. For our perusal. These two companies itself covers major amount of Rs. 96, 65,541/- and Rs. 1, 49,060/- respectively out of total amount involved 1, 00, 61,420/-. We found the reason assigned by the assessee for not filing the same before the authorities below and allow to submit the same before us and accepted also. 9. The additional evidences submitted by the assessee are duly accepted and con....