Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-1 v. M/S. Air India Charters Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1491 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1..Appellant Versus M/s. Air India Charters Ltd..Respondent ................... Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Sumandevi Yadav for the Appellant Mr. Ashok J. Pandit for the Respondent ................... CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2020. P.C.: 1.Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel,revenue for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Pandit, learnedcounsel for the respondent - assessee. 2.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by the revenueagainst the order dated 4.11.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai "A" Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal"for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 1458/Mum/2015 for theassessment year 2010-11. 3.The following two questions have been proposed assubstantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholdingthe order of the CIT(A) and holding that the amountretained by a bank / credit card agency out of the saleconsideration through credit cards is not covered underthe definition of "commission or brokerage" given in theExplanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act and theassessee was not liable to deduct tax at source underSection 194H in respect of this amount?case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholdingthe order of the CIT(A) and holding that the amountretained by a bank / credit card agency out of the saleconsideration through credit cards is not covered underthe definition of "commission or brokerage" given in theExplanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act and theassessee was not liable to deduct tax at source underSection 194H in respect of this amount? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholdingthe order of the CIT(A) that there was lack of principaland agent relationship between the assessee and thebank / credit card agencies?case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholdingthe order of the CIT(A) that there was lack of principaland agent relationship between the assessee and thebank / credit card agencies? 4.Mr. Kumar, learned standing counsel fairly submits that this Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd[1] has answeredthe two questions in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. In the said decision, this Court vide afÏrming thesimilar findings returned by the Tribunal held that amountretained by a bank / credit card agency out of the saleconsideration of tickets booked through credit cards is notcovered under the definition of 'commission' or 'brokerage' 1Income Tax Appeal No. 628 of 2018 decided on 23.4.2019 given in explanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act and insuch circumstances, assessee is not liable to deduct tax atsource under Section 194H in respect of this amount. 5.In the light of the above, the appeal filed by therevenue is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as tocost. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitallysigned byRavindraRavindra M.AmberkarM.Date:Amberkar2020.02.0610:27:22+0530