Regarding Question (A) :- It Is An Agreed Position Between The Parties That This Issue Stands Concluded Against The Revenue And In Favour Of The Respondent Asse v. L&T 2019, 260 Taxmann 271. In The Above View, This Question Does Not Give Rise To Any Substantial Question Of Law. Thus, Not Entertained

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax,TDS-1, Mumbai .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for the appellant Mr. S. Sriram i/b Sriram Sridharan for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 23[rd] SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. 1.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) challenges the order dated 27[th] May, 2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal relates toAssessment Year 2010-11. 2.consideration :- The Revenue has urged the following question of law for our (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no TDS was deductible u/s 194H by the assessee company onpayment of bank guarantee charges and thereby clearlyignoring the fact that for this service the bank is nothing but aconstructive agent of the assessee company? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that theamounts paid by the respondent for acquisition of hoarding /display rights would not require TDS under Section 194I of theAct. 3.Regarding question (a) :- It is an agreed position between theparties that this issue stands concluded against the Revenue and infavour of the respondent Assessee by the decision of this Court in CITVs. L&T 2019, 260 Taxmann 271. In the above view, this questiondoes not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, notentertained. 4.Regarding question (b) :- The appeal is admitted on thesubstantial question of law at (b) above. The appeal is taken up forfinal disposal. Both the parties are agreed that the impugned orderof the Tribunal needs to be set aside and the appeal be restored tothe Tribunal for fresh consideration. This for the reason that it has not considered the submission of both sides, in reaching itsconclusion. 5.We are in agreement with the reasons made for the jointrequest by the parties. We note that there is no clarity in theimpugned order with regard to which of the consideration paidwould be subject to TDS under Section 194I of the Act. TheAssessing Officer’s order seems to hold that Section 194I of the Actapplies to the premium paid for the site of the hoarding while theTribunal proceeds on the basis that the TDS is being sought onpurchases made for putting up the hoardings. 6.In the above view, the impugned order is set aside to the aboveextent and the appeal is restored to the Tribunal for freshconsideration. 7.Appeal disposed of in above terms. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)