State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India

257 ITR 202High Court2002#861 most cited

What is State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India authority for?

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

M.S. Hameed Ahmed vs Director of State Lotteries & Ors. · Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs Union of India · Section 194H · supplementary commission · TDS · withholding tax · certificates under Section 197

Sections most often in play

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1A)Section 37(1)Section 133(2A)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)

Issues it is cited on

section 194dsection 194hinterest under section 201(1a)short deduction of taxsummons under section 131section 197section 18section 201(1a)assessee in defaultright to receivemlisection 201(1)

Judgments citing State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

In the result, These appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/IND/2018[16-17 ( 2nd Qtr)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No.166 & 167/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2016-17(Q-4) & 2015-16(Q-3)) & It(Ss)A No.171 & 172/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2015-16(Q-01 &Q-2) & 2017-18(Q-1))

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…incipal and agent but it is between principal to principal and therefore the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 as well as other decisions of this Tribunal, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola vs. CIT, 402 ITR 539. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee in view of the decisions of jurisdictional Tribunal dated 11.12.2014 in case of M/…

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

In the result, These appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/IND/2018[2015-16 ( 4rth Qtr)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No.166 & 167/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2016-17(Q-4) & 2015-16(Q-3)) & It(Ss)A No.171 & 172/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2015-16(Q-01 &Q-2) & 2017-18(Q-1))

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…incipal and agent but it is between principal to principal and therefore the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 as well as other decisions of this Tribunal, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola vs. CIT, 402 ITR 539. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee in view of the decisions of jurisdictional Tribunal dated 11.12.2014 in case of M/…

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

In the result, These appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/IND/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No.166 & 167/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2016-17(Q-4) & 2015-16(Q-3)) & It(Ss)A No.171 & 172/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2015-16(Q-01 &Q-2) & 2017-18(Q-1))

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…incipal and agent but it is between principal to principal and therefore the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 as well as other decisions of this Tribunal, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola vs. CIT, 402 ITR 539. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee in view of the decisions of jurisdictional Tribunal dated 11.12.2014 in case of M/…

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

In the result, These appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/IND/2018[2015-16 ( 3rd Qtr)]Status: HeardITAT Indore25 May 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No.166 & 167/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2016-17(Q-4) & 2015-16(Q-3)) & It(Ss)A No.171 & 172/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2015-16(Q-01 &Q-2) & 2017-18(Q-1))

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…incipal and agent but it is between principal to principal and therefore the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 as well as other decisions of this Tribunal, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola vs. CIT, 402 ITR 539. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee in view of the decisions of jurisdictional Tribunal dated 11.12.2014 in case of M/…

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

In the result, These appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/IND/2018[2016-17 4rth Qtr]Status: HeardITAT Indore25 May 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No.166 & 167/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2016-17(Q-4) & 2015-16(Q-3)) & It(Ss)A No.171 & 172/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year:2015-16(Q-01 &Q-2) & 2017-18(Q-1))

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…incipal and agent but it is between principal to principal and therefore the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 as well as other decisions of this Tribunal, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola vs. CIT, 402 ITR 539. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee in view of the decisions of jurisdictional Tribunal dated 11.12.2014 in case of M/…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Limited, Indore vs. The ITO TDS-II, Indore

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…incipal and agent but it is between principal to principal and therefore the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 as well as other decisions of this Tribunal, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola vs. CIT, 402 ITR 539. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee in view of the decisions of jurisdictional Tribunal dated 11.12.2014 in case of M/…

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _1982/Del/2019 [Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Vs M/s Hero Motocorp ltd., New Delhi. 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. PAN- AAACH0812J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Ms.Manisha Sharma, Adv. Department represented by Shri K.M. Mahesh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 03.02.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, b…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…Management Services) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the Ld AO, tax should have been deducted at source u/s 194 of the Act. On appeal, Ld CIT (A) examined the facts and following the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs. UOI (257 ITR 202) and Tata Tele Services Ltd vs. DCIT (TDS) a decision from Bangalore Bench (ITA Nos.308 to 310 and 393 to 396) order dated 27/11/2012, wherein, it was held that there is no requirement of making TDS on the commission retained by Card Companies, opined that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194H of the Act are not applicable, deleted the a…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…Management Services) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the Ld AO, tax should have been deducted at source u/s 194 of the Act. On appeal, Ld CIT (A) examined the facts and following the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs. UOI (257 ITR 202) and Tata Tele Services Ltd vs. DCIT (TDS) a decision from Bangalore Bench (ITA Nos.308 to 310 and 393 to 396) order dated 27/11/2012, wherein, it was held that there is no requirement of making TDS on the commission retained by Card Companies, opined that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194H of the Act are not applicable, deleted the a…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400001 ……………… Appellant [PAN:AAACT3957G] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, ……………. Respondent M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Room No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Vs Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 40…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400001 ……………… Appellant [PAN:AAACT3957G] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, ……………. Respondent M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Room No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Vs Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 40…

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…the provisions of section 194H are not applicable in the absence of principal-agent relationship between the parties: Decision Forum Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Supreme Court Association10 348 ITR 378(SC) Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors High Court, Association11 Gujarat 257 ITR 202 (Guj) Bharti Airtel Ltd12 High Court, Karnataka 372 ITR 33(Kar) Kerala State Stamp Vendors High Court, Association13 Kerala 282 ITR 7 (Ker) IT(TP)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Page 31 of 33 33. It was submitted that the mere nomenclature does not determine the nature of transaction. In this regard it was pointed out that it is an undisputed fact that the…

Asus India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7831/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Asus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. CIT Circle-9(1)(2) 402, Supreme Chambers Mumbai R. No.210, 2nd Floor 17-18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road Aayakar Bhavan Andheri – West M.K.Road, Mumbai -400020 Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No. AAJCA6450C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue by Shri Satya Pinisetty Date of Hearing 03/01/2022 Date of Pronouncement 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal…

ITO (TDS) 3(4), Mumbai vs. Thyrocare Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are dismissed for parity of reasons

ITA 5389/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5389/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 5390/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं. 6519/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) आअसं. 6512/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2012-13) आअसं. 6520/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2012-13) Ito (Tds)-3(4), 9Th Floor, Room No. 909, Smt. K.G.M. Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Thyrocare Technologies Ltd. D-37/1, Ttc, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aaacu0551B ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Abhijeet Chaudhary "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. K. Shivram सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet ChaudharyFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ई”, मुंबई "ी जी. एस. प"ू,अ"" एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं. 5389/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 5390/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं. 6519/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) आअसं. 6512/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2012-13) आअसं. 6520/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2012-13) ITO (TDS)-3(4), 9th Floor, Room No. 909, Smt. K.G.M. Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Thyrocare Technologies Ltd. D-37/1, TTC, MIDC, Turbhe, Navi Mumba…

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…ssed for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14. Further, the Courts have in the following decisions rendered after the order passed by the Tribunal also reiterated the aforesaid legal positions: i. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 - affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 348 ITR 378. ii. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT: [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka HC) iii. PCIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer And Chemicals Ltd.:[2019] 266 Taxman 19 (Gujarat)(MAG) iv. CIT (TDS) v. OCM India Ltd. – [2018] 408 ITR 369 (P&H) v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: [2018] 402 ITR…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi vs. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4425/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

…rial to consider whether the transactions between appellant and HCL are on principal to principal basis or principal to agent basis which was directly contrary to law laid down by Hon’ble Courts in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Uol [2002] 257 ITR 202 (Gujarat) as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2012] 348 1TR 378 (SC), CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd. & Ors. [(2009) 319 ITR 29] and others and the CIT(A) has only corrected the findings of the Assessing Officer in light of abovementioned binding decisions. The Assessing Officer relied on assessments in previous year in case of p…

Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2527/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

…rial to consider whether the transactions between appellant and HCL are on principal to principal basis or principal to agent basis which was directly contrary to law laid down by Hon’ble Courts in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Uol [2002] 257 ITR 202 (Gujarat) as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2012] 348 1TR 378 (SC), CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd. & Ors. [(2009) 319 ITR 29] and others and the CIT(A) has only corrected the findings of the Assessing Officer in light of abovementioned binding decisions. The Assessing Officer relied on assessments in previous year in case of p…

Asus India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit
Section 194CSection 40

…Act for alleged violation of section 194C / 194H of the Act is legally unsustainable. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Ahmedabad Stemp Vendor Association v/s Union of India, [2002] 257 ITR 202; ii) CIT v/s Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association, [2012] 348 ITR 378; iii) CIT v/s United Beveries Ltd., [2017] 387 ITR 150; and iv) CIT v/s Intervate India Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 364 ITR 238. 9. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the cont…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblenokia India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit C/O. Tec, Level 18, Circle - 10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon. (Pan : Aaacn 2170 R)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…ationship, such ‘benefit’ extended to the Distributors cannot partake the character of ‘commission’ liable for withholding tax under Section 194H of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following case laws: • Ahmedabad Stamp vendors Association vs. UOI (2002) 257 ITR 202 (Guj) • CIT vs. Ahmedabad Stamp vendors Association (2012) 348 ITR 378 (SC) (SLP Dismissed against the HC order) • CIT vs. Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 238 (Del.) • CIT vs. Intervet India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom) • CIT vs. Mother Dairy India & Anr. (2013) 358 ITR 218 (Del) • CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 150 (Andhra…

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5791/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblenokia India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit C/O. Tec, Level 18, Circle - 10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon. (Pan : Aaacn 2170 R)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…ationship, such ‘benefit’ extended to the Distributors cannot partake the character of ‘commission’ liable for withholding tax under Section 194H of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following case laws: • Ahmedabad Stamp vendors Association vs. UOI (2002) 257 ITR 202 (Guj) • CIT vs. Ahmedabad Stamp vendors Association (2012) 348 ITR 378 (SC) (SLP Dismissed against the HC order) • CIT vs. Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 238 (Del.) • CIT vs. Intervet India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom) • CIT vs. Mother Dairy India & Anr. (2013) 358 ITR 218 (Del) • CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 150 (Andhra…