JCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3952/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 September 2019AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was based on the submission that the tax effect was below ₹.50 Lacs, making the appeals not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders excluding bank guarantee commission from the purview of Section 194A. The appeals pertained to Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13.

What were the issues?

Whether bank guarantee commission falls under the definition of interest for TDS purposes under Section 194A, and if the Revenue's appeals are maintainable due to low tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194A,Section 2(28A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain
Hearing: 19.09.2019Pronounced: 19.09.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) All these appeals are filed by the Revenue against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2018 for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following common grounds in its appeals except for figures: -

2 3952 & 3953/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) “1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in excluding bank guarantee commission from the purview of Section 194A, even when the payment was made prior to CBDT's Notification No.56/2012 dated 31.12.2012?" 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by holding that the guarantee commission does not come under the purview of definition of interest as envisaged in Section 2(28A) as per CBDT's Circular dated 05.07.1976?"

3.

At the time of hearing Ld. DR has stated that the tax effect on the issue in the present appeals is below ₹.50 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable. In view of the above submissions we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue on account of low tax effect.

4.

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 19th September, 2019

More judgments on Section 194A

All 1,500 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →