+ Ita 729/2016, Cm Appl v. M/S Ogaan Publication Pvt. Ltd

$~8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 729/2016, CM APPL. 39130/2016 (Exemption)PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX,DELHI-7, NEW DELHI..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. St. Counsel.versusPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX,DELHI-7, NEW DELHI..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. St. Counsel.versusM/S OGAAN PUBLICATION PVT. LTD...... RespondentThrough:None.Through:None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%16.11.2016 The question of law which the Revenue urges relates to theapplicability of Section 194H of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.ThisCourt notices that for previous years i.e. for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08, asimilar question was urged in ITA Nos. 181-182/2012.The Revenue’sappeal was rejected in those matters.The matter was pertaining to thepresent Assessee. The Court had then observed as follows: “ 3. We have considered the contention of theappellant but find that there is a finding recorded bytheTribunalthatthetransactionsbetweentherespondent-assessee and the advertising concerns, whohave been described as agencies, was on principal toprincipal basis. We may notice that the departmentalrepresentative, who had urged and argued the matteron behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal hadconceded that transactions of type (A) were betweenprincipal and principal but had submitted that thetransactions of type (B) were between a principal andan agent.The Tribunal examined the nature oftransactions type (A) and (B) and did not find anydifference between the same. 4.Before us the copy of the agreement between therespondent-assessee and the advertising concerns hasnot been placed. It is not shown and stated how and onwhat basis it is stated that the finding recorded by theTribunal that the transactions were between principaland principal is not correct and the contention that thetransactions were between a principal and an agent isurged.The advertising concern had purchased thespace in the publication and had sold the same to thirdparties. The factual finding recorded by the tribunal isthatamounttreatedandgivennomenclatureofcommission was a discount and what was received bythe assessee was the net amount. The description/deduction given in the bill was in fact and de facto notcommission.In the case of Director, Prasar Bharti(supra), the finding of the High Court was that thetransactions were between a principal and an agentand the Court had referred to the agreement enteredinto by the Doordarshan and its agencies. The KeralaHigh Court in the said case, distinguished AhmedabadStamp Venders Association v. UOI, (2002) 257 ITR202 (Guj.) and M.S. Hameed v. Director of StateLotteries, (2001) 249 ITR 186 (Ker.) on the groundthat they related to discounted prices. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, we do notthink any substantial question of law arises forconsideration and the appeal is dismissed.”think any substantial question of law arises forconsideration and the appeal is dismissed.” In view of the above developments, no substantial question arises.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 16, 2016/acm NAJMI WAZIRI, J