DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the payments made by the assessee to stockists were on a principal-to-principal basis and not in the nature of commission. The interest paid on delayed payments to MSMEs was also not considered 'interest' for TDS purposes as it was linked to trading liabilities.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed relief to the assessee regarding non-deduction of TDS on discounts, bonuses, and interest payments. The CIT(A) relied on previous favorable decisions for the assessee in similar matters.
What were the issues?
Whether discounts and bonuses offered to stockists attract TDS under Section 194H, and whether interest on delayed payments to MSMEs is subject to TDS under Section 194A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(18)Show listHide 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.
- Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT576 citing293 ITR 226 · 2007 · SC
- Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT353 citing129 Taxmann 539 · 2003 · SC
- Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT139 citing20 Taxmann.com 244 · 2012
- India Ltd. v. CIT (Supra). He51 citing303 ITR 411 · 2008 · HC
- CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd.49 citing257 ITR 60 · 2002 · HC
- CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd.22 citing286 ITR 201 · 2006 · HC
- (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax21 citing292 ITR 175 · 2007 · HC
- Phatela Cotgin Industries(P) Ltd. v. CIT14 citing166 Taxmann 9 · HC
- Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta13 citing258 ITR 337 · 2002
- British Bank of Middle East v. CIT11 citing233 ITR 251 · 1998 · HC
- Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ahmedabad v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah11 citing12 Taxmann.com 37 · 2011 · ITAT
- ITO v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah11 citing46 SOT 302 · 2011 · ITAT
- 286 ITR 201/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT9 citing231 CTR 348 · 2010 · HC
- 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT6 citing165 Taxmann 191 · HC
- 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd.6 citing228 CTR 356 · 2010 · HC
- CIT v. Nirma Industries Ltd.6 citing166 Taxmann 95 · 2008
- CIT v. Paras Oil Extraction Ltd.6 citing96 Taxmann 234 · 1998 · HC
- Sri Venkatesh Paper Agencies (Hyd.) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad6 citing24 Taxmann.com 52 · 2012
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(CIT(A))-12, Pune passed u/sec 201(1)/201(1A) and u/sec250 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: a) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the transaction of sale between the assessee company and stockiest was on principal to principal basis and therefore discount offered would not come under ambit of 194H, without appreciating the fact that the entire liabilit
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.
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.
- DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), Mumbai vs M/S. Wockhardt Ltd., MumbaiMumbai30 Dec 2022Dismissed
Also relies on ITO v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the incentives offered to stockists were in the nature of discounts on a principal-to-principal basis and not commission. It also held that the interest paid for delayed purchase payments was not i...
- DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs Wockhardt Limited, MumbaiMumbai20 Dec 2022Dismissed
Also relies on British Bank of Middle East v. CIT and 4 other authorities
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 ...
- JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs M/S Wockhardt Ltd, MumbaiMumbai21 Nov 2022Dismissed
Also relies on British Bank of Middle East v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and stockists were on a principal-to-principal basis, and therefore, discounts, bonuses, and incentives offered did not fall under the ambit of Section 194H. P...
- DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs Wockhardt Limited, MumbaiMumbai11 Dec 2020Dismissed
Also relies on British Bank of Middle East v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that discounts and bonuses offered to stockists were not in the nature of commission under Section 194H, and interest on delayed payments for purchases was not 'interest' as defined under Section 2(28A)...
- DCIT(OSD)(TDS) - 2(3), Mumbai vs Wockhardt Ltd., MumbaiMumbai19 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on ITO v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions for discounts, bonus/incentives, and interest to MSMEs, relying on its own previous decisions. However, the issue of TDS default reported in the Tax...
More judgments on Section 194H
- Mahesh Pulaveni, Adilabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 991/HYD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
