SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Singapore Airlines Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
C.I.T. Delhi – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 6964-6965 of 2015
WITH
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines – Appellant
Versus
C.I.T. New Delhi – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 6966-6967 of 2015
WITH
British Airways PLC – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Delhi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6968 of 2015
Decided On : 14-11-2022
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 194H – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 182 – Tax Deduction at Source (“TDS”) – Endeavour must be to determine whether travel agents were “acting on behalf of” airlines during process of selling flight tickets – Every action taken by travel agents is on behalf of air carriers and services they provide is with express prior authorization – Airline also indemnifies travel agent for any shortcoming in actual services of transportation and any connected ancillary services – Contract is one of agency that does not distinguish in terms of stages of transaction involved in selling flight tickets – Arrangement between agent and purchaser is not a separate and distinct arrangement but is merely part of package of activities undertaken pursuant to the PSA – Section 194H of IT Act does not distinguish between direct and indirect payments – Factum of exact source of payment would be of no consequence to requirement of deducting TDS – Even on an indirect payment stemming from consumer, Assessees would remain liable under IT Act. (Paras 20, 31, 32, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Question that arises for our consideration pertains to interpretation of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 01.04.2000. The provision requires deduction of tax at source (“TDS”) at 10% plus surcharge from payments falling under definition of “Commission” or “Brokerage” under the Section. Central point for consideration lies in interpretation of what amounts to a “Commission” under Section 194H of the IT Act.
Findings of Court:
In the eventuality that any of the agents have not yet paid taxes on the Supplementary Commission, Revenue will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law under the IT Act for recover of shortfall in TDS from the airlines. However, we limit ability to levy penalties against the Assessees in light of Section 273B of the IT Act.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to the interpretation of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) as introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 01.04.2000. The provision requires deduction of tax at source (“TDS”) at 10% plus surcharge from payments falling under the definition of “Commission” or “Brokerage” under the Section.
(A) THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY
2. Within the aviation industry during the relevant period, the base fare1 [“Base Fare”] for air tickets was set by the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) with discretion provided to airlines to sell their tickets for a net fare lower than the Base Fare, but not higher.2 [“Net Fare”] In essence, the IATA set the ceiling price for how much airlines may charge their customers. This formed part of the IATA’s overall responsibility of overseeing the functioning of the industry.
3. The air carriers were also required to provide a fare list to the Director General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA”) for approval. The prices that were rubber stamped by the DGCA may be equivalent to or lower than the Base Fare set by the IATA. Alongside setting the standard pecuniary amount for tickets, the IATA would provide blank tickets to the travel agents acting on behalf of the airlines to market and sell the travel documents. The arrangement between the airlines and the travel agents would be governed by Passenger Sales Agency Agreements (“PSA”). The draft templates for these contracts are drawn up by the IATA and entered into by various travel agents operating in the sector, with the IATA which signs on behalf of the air carriers. The PSAs set the conditions under which the travel agents carry out the aforementioned sale of flight tickets, along with other ancillary services, and the remuneration they are entitled to for these activities.
4. Once these tickets were sold, a 7% commission designated by the IATA would, be paid to the travel agent for its services as “Standard Commission” based on the price bar set by the IATA.3 [Prior to 01.01.2002, the Standard Commission was paid at the rate of 9%] This would be independent of the Net Fare quoted by the air carriers themselves. The 7% commission on the Base Fare consequently triggered a requirement on the part of the airline to deduct TDS under Section 194H at 10% plus surcharge. The details of the amounts at which the tickets were sold would be transmitted by the travel agents to an organization known as the Billing and Settlement Plan (“BSP”). The BSP functions under the aegis of the IATA and manages inter-alia logistics vis-a-vis payments and acts as a forum for the agents and airlines to examine details pertaining to the sale of flight tickets.
5. The BSP stores a plethora of financial information including the net amount payable to the aviation companies, discounts, and commission payable to the agents. The system consolidated the amounts owed by each agent to various airlines following the sale of the tickets by the former. The aggregate amount accumulated in the BSP would then be transmitted to each air carrier by the IATA in a single financial transaction to smoothen the process and prevent the need to make multiple payments over time.
6. Within this framework, the airlines would have no control over the Actual Fare at which the travel agents would sell the tickets.4 [“Actual Fare”] While the ceiling price could not be breached, as mentioned earlier, the agents would be at liberty to set a price lower than the Base Fare pegged by the IATA, but still higher than the Net Fare demanded by the airline itself. Hence, the additional amount that the travel agents charged over and above the Net Fare that was quoted by the airline would be retained by the agent as its own income.
7. An illustration of how such a transaction would be carried out and the monetary gains made
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Commissioner of Income Tax VS Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association
Director, Prasar Bharati v. CIT
Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Sons Ltd. vs. The Government of Hyderabad
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. vs. Sheikh M.A. Majid and Co. 1966 Supp SCR 1 – Relied [Para 23]
Khedut Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society vs. State of Gujarat
Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. STO, Bhopal
Qamar Shaffi Tyabji vs. The Commissioner, Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad
Tax Deduction at Source (“TDS”) – Section 194H of IT Act does not distinguish between direct and indirect payments – Factum of exact source of payment would be of no consequence to requirement of ded....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant was not under a legal obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the nature of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of transactions and the clarifications provided by the CBDT in its circulars significantly influence the applicability of TDS under....
(1) Liability to deduct tax at source – Assessees (cellular mobile telephone service providers) would not be under a legal obligation to deduct tax at source on income/profit component in payments re....
No TDS u/s 195 on commission to non-resident agents for services outside India without PE/business connection, as income neither accrues/arises nor deemed to in India u/s 5(2)/9; no disallowance u/s ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.