JCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. NIMBUS COMMUNICATIONS LTD, MUMBAI

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-60/IT-100/ITO(TDS)-2(4)/2014-15 dated 26.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13.

(A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Nimbus Communications Limited Commission paid by the assessee to the Banks is not covered under "Commission or brokerage" as defined u/s 194H of the Act and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H in respect of this amount? 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not confirming the order of the Assessing Officer treating the assessee in default u/s 201(1) in respect of amount of tax which has not been deducted u/s 194H and levying interest u/s 201 (1A) of the Act? 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that there does not exist Principal-Agent relationship between the Assessee and the Banks and thereby clearly ignoring the fact that in the entire process of facilitation of Guarantee Banks are nothing but a constructive agent for the assessee company? 4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the section 194H gives an inclusive definition of "Commission or Brokerage" and has wide coverage to clearly include the payment of Guarantee Commission paid by the assessee to the Banks?

Order pronounced in the Court on 19th September, 2019