IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.6419, 6420, 6421, 6422, 6423, 6424 & 6425/M/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. CEAT Limited, Income Tax Officer, 463, RPG House, OSD TDS Circle 1(1), Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli 411, 4^th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs.

Mumbai MTNL Bldg., Pedder Road, Maharashtra – 400 030 Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh PAN: AAACC1645G Marg, Mumbai – 400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ld. A.R. &

Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ld. A.R.

Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R.

Date of Hearing : 05 . 02 .2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28 . 03 . 2025

O R D E R

Per Bench:

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 16.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for the A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20.

2. All these appeals under consideration are based on the identical facts except variation in amounts and having involved identical issue and therefore for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and issue involved in ITA No.6419/M/2024 as a lead case and result of the same would be applicable mutatis mutandis, to all the appeals under consideration.

3. ITA No.6419/M/2024: In this case, the Assessee has claimed to be engaged in the business of tyre manufacturing and selling and therefore in order to verify whether the Assessee company is properly applying with the provisions contained in chapter (xviib) of the Act, a survey action u/s 133(a)(2a) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the Assessee on dated 05.10.2018, wherein it was found that the Assessee company‟s sales of tyres are through consignees and forwarding agents (CFAs). As per clause 5 of CFA agreement, the CFA will be eligible for claiming the reimbursement of expenses on actual as fixed expenses for warehouse, rent, storage, furniture, fixtures etc. as incentive and commission on sales on a monthly basis at the specified rate per kilogram of sales made per month for local sales and upcountry sales, as case may be. On perusing the TDS ledgers for the payments made to the CFA, it was seen by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the Assessee was deducting TDS @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act, on the fixed expenses paid as incentive, as well as commission paid under nomenclature of “variable service charges” on the bills raised by the CFAs. Since the Assessee was paying “commission” to the CFA agents, on the specified rate under the nomenclature of “variable service charges”, the TDS should have been deducted @ 5% u/s 194H of the Act. The AO further observed that in the statement recorded u/s 133 of the Act during survey proceedings, Shri Hiren Desai, General Manager, taxation of the Assessee company, was confronted with these facts, who had stated that “as per agreement”, the CFA is providing various services such as loading, unloading, storing and delivery of the tyres, accounting and receipt booking etc.. For providing all these services, the CFA is incurring various expenses. In consideration for all these services, the company is making payment to CFA as fixed expenses and variable expenses. The said services fall under contractual obligation and accordingly the assessee company is deducting TDS u/s 194C of the Act. The classification in the agreement as “commission” is nomenclature given for the remuneration to the CFA for providing contractual services.

4. The AO thereafter issued statutory notices, to the Assessee and show caused “as to why the Assessee should not be treated as deemed to be an Assessee in default within the meaning of section 201