Section 194H, 194J of Income Tax Act, 1961— In the instant case, issue is that whether provision of section 194H will attract in case of assessee or not

Held that— We find that the coordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai ‘C’ bench has examined the issue of applicability of provision of section 194H and consequent TDS liability on the assesee on payments made to stockiest for the impugned AY under section 263 proceedings and after considering relevant facts came to the conclusion that the transactions between the assesee and stockiest are in the nature of sales of goods, but not in the nature of principal to agent relationship and consequently, the requirement of deduction of tax at source u/s 194H of the I.T. Act, 1961, does not arise. We further noted that the assesee has filed complete details before the Ld.CIT(A), including agreement between the parties, as per which the modus operandi of the assesses to sale of goods has been explained, as per which the assesee sales goods to stockiest and raises invoices and collets applicable excise duty and VAT. Further, the title in the goods is transferred to the stockiest, at the time of delivery. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the arrangements between the assesee and the stockiest for sale of goods is in the nature of principal to principal basis, but not in the nature of principal to agent and accordingly, amount paid by the assesee to stockists is not in the nature of commission, which is liable for TDS u/s 194H. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assesee has rightly deleted additions made by the AO toward short deduction of TDS u/s 201(1) and consequent interest u/s 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961.[DCIT (TDS) -2 (1) VERSUS PFIZER LTD. (VICE-VERSA)] [2019] 19 ITCD Online (13) [ITAT MUMBAI]