No Denial of Sec. 194Q TDS Credit as ‘Kachha Arhatia’ Had No Domain Over Goods Sold to Principal Buyers
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 26 October, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Kamlesh Kumar Jain vs. DCIT - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 601 (Jaipur-Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member
- Anoop Bhatia, CA for the Appellant.
- Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was a “Kacha Aaratiya” selling agricultural produce on behalf of the farmer to the principal buyer. While processing the return, a demand was raised after the TDS credit claimed was disallowed by invoking Rule 37BA. The matter reached the Jaipur Tribunal.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that the turnover on which TDS was deducted under section 194Q was not the turnover of the assessee. Moreover, a “Kaccha Arhatiya” acts only as an agent for his constituent and never acts as principal. Therefore, the remuneration of “Kaccha Arhatiya” consists solely of commission, and he has no control over the profit and losses made by his constituents.
In the instant case, the amount invoiced by the assessee to the principal buyer and the value of goods transferred by the assessee to the farmer was exactly the same. Therefore, the turnover of “Kutcha Arhatiya” was merely the commission paid by the principal buyer, on which the principal buyer deducts TDS under section 194H and which had been duly shown as income in the return of income by the assessee.
It was held that the assessee was a “Kaccha Arhatia” and was duly registered as such with the Ramganj mandi, Kota. Perusal of the ‘vikray parchi’ issued at the mandi to the farmers and the corresponding invoice raised by the assessee to the principal buyer undoubtedly establishes the fact that the assessee had no control or margin in the sale facilitated by him and earns merely commission from such transactions. Assessee had no domain over the goods sold to the principle buyers
Therefore, the TDS deducted by such principle buyers by virtue of provisions of section 194Q was eligible to be claimed by the Kaccha Arhatiya in his ITR.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Madan Lal Gupta [IT Appeal No. 192 (JPR) of 2024, dated 30-3-2024](para 2.7) followed.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
