IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 181/2012  
 . 
 ITA 182/2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT            ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 OGAAN PUBLICATION PVT LTD ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      16.03.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 These two appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to assessment years 
 2006-07 and 2007-08 and relate to disallowance under Section 40a(ia) in 
 respect of `1,20,34,012/- and `1,70,07,440/- made by the Assessing 
 Officer on account of failure to deduct tax (TDS) resource under Section 
 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (?Act?, for short). 
 . 
 2. Ld. sr. standing counsel for the appellant has relied upon the 
 decision of Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. Director, Prasar Bharti (2010) 
 325 ITR 205 (Ker.) in support of her submission that the discount given 
 to the advertising agencies should be treated as commission. 
 . 
 3. We have considered the contention of the appellant but find that 
 there is a finding recorded by the Tribunal that the transactions between 
 the respondent-assessee and the advertising concerns, who have been 
 described as agencies, was on principal to principal basis.  We may 
 notice that the departmental representative, who had urged and argued the 
 . 
 matter on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal had conceded that transactions of type (A) were between principal and principal but had 
 submitted that the transactions of type (B) were between a principal and 
 an agent.  The Tribunal examined the nature of transactions type (A) and 
 (B) and did not find any difference between the same. 
 . 
 4. Before us the copy of the agreement between the respondent-assessee 
 and the advertising concerns has not been placed.  It is not shown and 
 stated how and on what basis it is stated that the finding recorded by 
 the Tribunal that the transactions were between principal and principal 
 is not correct and the contention that the transactions were between a 
 principal and an agent is urged.  The advertising concern had purchased 
 the space in the publication and had sold the same to third parties.  The 
 factual finding recorded by the tribunal is that amount treated and given 
 nomenclature of commission was a discount and what was received by the 
 assessee was the net amount.  The description/ deduction given in the 
 bill was in fact and de facto not commission.  In the case of Director, 
 Prasar Bharti (supra), the finding of the High Court was that the 
 transactions were between a principal and an agent and the Court had 
 referred to the agreement entered into by the Doordarshan and its 
 agencies.  The Kerala High Court in the said case, distinguished 
 Ahmedabad Stamp Venders Association v. UOI, (2002) 257 ITR 202 (Guj.) and 
 M. S. Hameed v. Director of State Lotteries, (2001) 249 ITR 186 (Ker.) on 
 the ground that they related to discounted prices. 
 . 
 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, we do not think any 
 substantial question of law arises for consideration and the appeal is 
 dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 MARCH 16, 2012 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 1 
 . 
 . 
 .