DCIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2314/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 December 2022AY 2013-1416 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payments made to stockists were on a principal-to-principal basis and did not fall under Section 194H. The interest paid for delayed purchase payments was also held to be a trade liability and not 'interest' as defined under Section 2(28A), thus not requiring TDS under Section 194A.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee was treated as an "assessee in default" for not deducting TDS on discounts, bonuses, and incentives paid to stockists, and on interest for delayed payments to MSMEs.

What were the issues?

Whether discounts, bonuses, and incentives paid to stockists are in the nature of commission requiring TDS under Section 194H, and whether interest on delayed payments to MSMEs is 'interest' requiring TDS under Section 194A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194H,Section 194A,Section 2(28A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(17)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R

Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The appellant, DCIT (TDS)(O )-2(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the LA. CITIA has erred in relying on the Hon'ble ITAT decision in holding that the transaction of sale between the assessee company and St

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 194H

All 1,314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194H →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →