Accountant
53 Points
Joined May 2010
ACIT v. Trimex Industries (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 422 of 2013) (Chennai Tribunal)- rendered on October 29, 2015 It was held in this case, that the amount to be paid is not a question of money borrowed, and interest thereon, but a payment made for purchase and a compensatory charge for the period of credit utilized for payment of the amount due. Considering the above legal analysis and jurisprudence, it can be contended that interest paid/payable for delay in purchase price partakes the nature of purchase price and not ‘interest’ in the sense defined under section 2(28A) of the Act. Once the payment is not within the meaning as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act, TDS provision under section 194A will have no application on payment of such interest. Having said this, there may be diverse decision[5], but there is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court on the subject and therefore, the lower tax authorities may dispute the characterization of the payment. Conclusion: It can be contended that no TDS is required to be deducted under section 194A on interest payable on delayed payment of unpaid purchase price, which is supported by decisions specifically stated above.
"Sir, Judgement which is above is not applicable in my case. Am I correct Sir? """""""""