ASST CIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI vs. CLEAR TRIP TRAVEL P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance, following a coordinate bench's decision and a Delhi High Court ruling. It was held that no principal-agent relationship existed, thus no TDS was required.
What were the facts?
The assessee made payments to credit card agencies/banks as collection charges and did not deduct TDS, treating them as financial charges. The AO viewed these as commission and required TDS under Section 194H.
What were the issues?
Whether payments to credit card agencies for collection charges are in the nature of commission requiring TDS under Section 194H, and if non-deduction leads to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A)-12, Mumbai and they relate to A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since the issue urged in both these appeals is identical in nature, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
Solitary issue urged in these appeals is whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of tax at source from the payments made to the credit card agencies/banks as collection charges.
2 M/s. Clear Trip Travel Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing travel related assistance lime air ticket books, rail ticket bookings, hotel bookings etc. During the year under consideration it has paid credit card collection charges to banks and other agencies. The assessee did not deduct tax at sources form the said payment by treating the same as financial charges. However, the AO took the view that the same is in the nature of commission and the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) however deleted the same by following his decision rendered on identical issue in the proceedings initiated u/s. 201(1) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source from payments made to the credit cards agencies/bank.
Learned Counsel submitted that the learned CIT(A) had deleted the demand raised u/s. 201(1) of the Act and the same has been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.5.2016 passed in assessee’s own case in relating to A.Y. 2010-11. He submitted that the Tribunal has already held that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the credit card agencies/bank, since there is no principal agent relationship between the assessee and the credit card agencies/bank. He submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is also getting support from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of JDS Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 608/2014 dated 18.11.2014). Accordingly he submitted that the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) need to the confirmed.
On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer.
Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference, since his view has already been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the proceedings related to section 201(1) of the Act and further
3 M/s. Clear Trip Travel Pvt. Ltd. supported by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of JDS Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly we confirm the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 15.11.2016
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026