IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS PADMAVATHY S. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5210/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2016-17 ITA No. 5211/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 5165/Mum/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19 DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), Mumbai vs House of Anita Dongre Pvt Ltd

420, MTNL Building, Cumballa 20/C Pali Village Opp Saisa, Club Off Hill, Mumbai-400 026 16^th Road, Bandra West, MumbaIi-

400 050 TAN: MUMA21262D PAN: AADCA2325A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. a/w Shri Mahesh O.Rajora, CA Respondent by Shri Biswanath Das - CITDR Date of hearing : 20/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 11/04/2025

O R D E R

PER BENCH:

This bunch of appeals of the revenue were filed against the order of theLearned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) Addl / JCIT (A)-1, Hyderabad [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2016-17,2017-18 & 2018-19,date of order08/08/2024, for all assessment years.The appeals are emanated from the order of the Ld.ACIT (OSD), TDS Circle 1(2), Mumbai (in short, the “Ld. AO”) for A.Y.2016-17, date of order 15/02/2021, orders passed by Ld. DCIT (OSD), TDS Circle 1(2), (in short the “Ld. AO”) for A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, orders passed under section 29/12/2023 and all the orders passed under section 201(1) /

201(1A) of the Act.

2. All the appeals have same nature of facts and have a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. So,ITA No.5210/Mum/2024 is taken as lead case.

ITA 5210/Mum/2024

3. The revenue has taken the following grounds:-

“1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the transaction between the assessee company and channel partners was on principal to principal basis and therefore transaction would not come under ambit of 194H, without appreciating the fact that Ownership of the goods lies with the assessee company (brand owner) till the time of sale of the goods by channel partner to end customer since the business risk of goods supplied to channel partners lies with assessee company till the time goods are sold to the end customer."

2) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the transaction between the assessee company and channel partners was on principal to principal basis and therefore transaction would not come under ambit of 194H, without appreciating the fact that sale as a contract involving transfer of the possession and the ownership (title) of a good in exchange for money or value. However, in the instant case, ownership is not transferred, the channel partner is not needed to deploy capital for receipt of goods and money is also not received unless the end sale is made."

3) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the transaction between the assessee company and channel partners was on principal to principal basis and therefore transaction would not come under ambit of 194H, without appreciating the fact that the channel partners are provided margins by the assessee company, the manner in which Goods are sold and the price at which they are sold are in the domain and discretion of the assessee company and this would not be the case had it been "Principal to Principal" sale scenario."

4) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the transaction between the assessee company and channel partners was on principal to principal basis and therefore transaction would not come under ambit of 194H, without appreciating the fact that as per CBDT Circular No. 619 dated 04-12-1991 the retention of commission by an agent amounts to constructive payment on which TDS is required to be deducted by the principal."

5) "Whether on the fac