M/s. M. Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5419/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91227 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA SENIOR
• Keywords: Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5419/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M. SONS GEMS N JEWELLERY PVT. LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6, (FORMERLY : M SONS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.) NEW DELH I. C/O SSAR & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 4852/24, 1 ST FLOOR, NEAR SANJIVAN HOSPITAL, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI 110 002. (PAN : AADCM9406A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SACHIN JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJNA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IX, NEW DE LHI DATED 27.07.2012. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009-10 . 2 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED SIX GROUNDS. ALL THE GROUNDS RELATE TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIE D IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,68,870/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN GOLD, DIAMOND JEWELLER Y AND BULLION. FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 07.03. 2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,79,89,810/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT AND SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2011 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,73, 58,680/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.93,68,870/- ON ACCOU NT OF FACTORING/DISCOUNTING CHARGES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT AS NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS DEDUCTED ON THE SAME. 4. BRIEF FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION ARE AS F OLLOWS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NO TICED FROM THE NOTE TO THE ACCOUNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT POINT NO.11 OF T HE AUDITED REPORT AS UNDER :- 11. THE COMPANY HAS AVAILED THE FACTORING FACILIT Y FROM GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LIMITED ON WHICH THE SAME HAS BEEN CH ARGING DISCOUNT. THE COMPANY HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS AS IT I S NOT AN INTEREST. 3 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.93,68,870/- WAS DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD FACTORING / DISCOUNTING CHAR GES. THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE L IMITED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO GTF). THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO SUBMIT THE D ETAILS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD FACTORING/DISCOUNTING CHARG ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER ANALYZING AND EXAMINING THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BROUGHT OUT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FACTORING/BILL DISCOUNTING CHAR GES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO EXAMINED THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND GTF . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE FACTORING CHARGES ARE NO THING BUT INTEREST PAYMENT AND TAX OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE SAME WHEN TH E PAYMENTS WERE MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENSES BY I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, SINCE THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING THESE PAYMENTS. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT (A) READS AS UNDER :- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE L D. AO AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE L D. AR AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON RECORD. THE LD. AO HAS ELABORA TELY DISCUSSED THE CONCEPT OF FACTORING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D HAS CATEGORICALLY BROUGHT OUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN T HE FACTORING AND BILL DISCOUNTING. ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILED DISC USSION, (AND REFERRING TO THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT E NTERED INTO BY 4 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 THE APPELLANT WITH GTF), THE ID. AO HAS SUCCESSFULL Y ESTABLISHED THAT THE ARRANGEMENT THE APPELLANT HAD WITH GTF, FA LLS IN THE REALM OF FACTORING. THE FOLLOWING DISTINCTIVE FACTS EMERGE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER : (I) THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF FACTORING CHARGES SHOWS TH AT THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF SPECIALIZED SERVICES RENDERED BY T HE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. THE CONCEPT OF FACTORING ALSO SHOWS T HAT THE PREPAYMENTS MADE, AGAINST THE INVOICES, IS NOTHING BUT A SHORT- TERM FINANCING FACILITY PROVIDED BY THE FINANCIAL I NSTITUTION (FACTOR), ON WHICH THE CLIENT IS UNDER A LEGAL OBLI GATION TO PAY INTEREST AT A FIXED RATE ALONG WITH THE FACTORING C HARGES. (II) THE FINANCE SO PROVIDED IS TO BE RECOVERED BY THE FACTOR FROM THE DEBTORS OF THE CLIENT AND IN CASE OF DEFAULT BY THE DEBTORS THE ENTIRE ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE FACTOR IS LIABLE TO BE REPAID BY THE CLIENT TO THE FACTOR ALONG WITH THE INTEREST. THE 'INTERES T' PAID BY THE CLIENT IS ALSO TERMED AS 'DISCOUNT CHARGES', HOWEVE R, THE TERMINOLOGY ITSELF CANNOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF CHAR GE FROM INTEREST TO ANYTHING ELSE. (III) IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, GTF, WHICH IS A NON-BANKING FINANCIAL CORPORATION (NBFC), PROVIDED FACTORING SE RVICES. THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY GTF WERE 'RECOURSE FACTORING S ERVICES' WHERE THE RISK OF BAD DEBTS WAS NOT BORNE BY THE FORMER A ND WAS PASSED ON TO THE APPELLANT AFTER A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME . (IV) 'GTF HAD SECURED PERSONAL GUARANTEE OF THE DIR ECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEFORE GRANTING THE FACTORING FACILITY. (V) GTF HAD ALSO SECURED ENGLISH MORTGAGE ON THE RE SIDENTIAL BUNGALOW LOCATED AT 0-926, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI PRIOR TO GRANTING THE FUNDING. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THA T THE PROVIDED FACILITY WAS NOT OF 'DISCOUNTING OF BILLS' AS CONTE NDED BY THE APPELLANT AS GTF HAD ENSURED THAT THE FUNDS PROVIDE D BY IT WERE SECURED AND RECOVERABLE FROM THE APPELLANT, IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE DEBTORS. (VI) GTF ALSO TOOK AN UNDERTAKING THAT ANY PURCHASE S/ADVANCES FROM DEBTORS MENTIONED IN THE TERM SHEET SHALL BE W ITH PRIOR 5 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 INTIMATION TO GTF. LIKEWISE, AN UNDERTAKING FOR DEB TORS WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO GTF. (VII) THE GENERAL TERM NO.11 OF THE AGREEMENT SPECI FIES THAT GTF TREATS PREPAYMENTS OF 80% OF INVOICES AS 'BORRO WINGS'. (VIII) AS PER THE GENERAL TERM NO.12, IT HAS BEEN C ATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IF THE APPELLANT COMMITS DEFAULT IN 'RE PAYMENT OF LOAN OR PAYMENT OF INTEREST' ON THE DUE DATES, IT WILL B E DECLARED AS A DEFAULTER TO RBI AND CIBIL. THIS CATEGORICAL CONDIT ION FURTHER CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT FINANCING BY GTF IS IN THE N ATURE OF LOAN ON WHICH IT IS CHARGING INTEREST. THIS LOAN IS GIVEN B Y WAY OF PREPAYMENT OF 80% OF THE INVOICE. (IX) THE GENERAL TERM NO. 13 IS MOST SPECIFIC IN ST ATING THAT THE 'INTEREST RATES' MENTIONED IN THE. AGREEMENT, ARE B ASED ON THE CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF GTF. IT FURTHER SAYS THAT THE 'INTERE ST RATES ARE APPLICABLE ON THE FACILITIES', PROVIDED BY GTF. IN VIEW OF SUCH CATEGORICAL MENTION OF 'LOAN AND INTEREST' IN THE A GREEMENT, THERE IS VERY LITTLE DOUBT LEFT TO IMAGINE ANY THING CONT RARY TO THAT. (X) AN EXAMINATION OF THE TERM SHEET ISSUED BY GTF SHOWS THAT THE PREPAYMENT (LOAN OR BORROWING) IS FIXED AT 80% OF ALL INVOICES, AND DISCOUNT CHARGES (INTEREST) @ 13% PER ANNUM WAS CHARGED ON THIS PREPAYMENT. ALONG WITH THIS INTEREST, GTF IS A LSO CHARGED FACTORING CHARGES @ 0.10% ON THE GROSS INVOICE AMOU NT. HENCE, GTF WAS CHARGING 'INTEREST' ON THE FINANCES AND THE 'FACTORING CHARGES' ON THE FACTORING SERVICES PROVIDED BY IT. THE 'FACTORING CHARGES' ARE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES WHICH ARE CHARG ED TOWARDS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE OPERATIONAL OVERHEADS AND COLLECTION OF DEBTS ETC. 6.1 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, I FIND THA T THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT IT DID NOT PAY INTEREST TO GTF ON F ACTORING SERVICES IS NOT TENABLE AND IS AGAINST THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF FACTORING. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT 'FACTORING' IS SYNONYMO US WITH 'BILL/INVOICE DISCOUNTING' THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORR ECT AS 'FACTORING' AND 'SILL/INVOICE DISCOUNTING' ARE TWO DIFFERENT CO NCEPTS HAVING 6 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES AS ELABORATELY BROUGHT OUT BY THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6.2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 2 (28A) THAT MONEY PAID IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT BORROWED OR DEBT IN CURRED, IS INTEREST PAYABLE IN ANY MANNER. THE DEFINITION OF I NTEREST IN SECTION 2(28A) AFTER REFERRING TO THE INTEREST PAYA BLE IN ANY MANNER IN RESPECT OF ANY MONEYS BORROWED OR DEBT IN CURRED PROCEEDS TO INCLUDE IN THE TERMS THE MONEY BORROWED OR INCURRED, DEPOSITS, CLAIMS AND 'OTHER SIMILAR RIGHTS OR OBLIG ATIONS' AND FURTHER INCLUDES ANY SERVICE, FEES OR OTHER CHARGES IN RESPECT OF SUCH MONEY BORROWED OR DEBT INCURRED WHICH WOULD IN CLUDE DEPOSIT, CLAIM OR OTHER SIMILAR RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIO NS AS ALSO IN RESPECT OF ANY CREDIT FACILITIES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED. THUS, THE STATUTORY DEFINITION GIVEN UNDER SECTION 2(28A) REGARDS AMOUNTS WHICH MAY NOT OTHERWISE BE REGARDED AS INTE REST, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE INSTAN T CASE, THE FACTORING CHARGES WERE PAID IN RESPECT OF AN OBLIGA TION INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE MONEY BORROWED THROUGH BILLS, THERE FORE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND ON THE PART OF THE AO FOR TREATING THE SE CHARGES AS INTEREST AND LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UND ER SECTION 194A. THE MERE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT CHARACTERI ZE SUCH PAYMENT AS INTEREST, WILL NOT TAKE THE SAME OUT OF THE AMBI T OF THE DEFINITION OF 'INTEREST', INSOFAR AS PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPEL LANT WAS IN RESPECT OF AN OBLIGATION INCURRED UNDER THE TERMS O F THE BILL SO DISCOUNTED. THE APPELLANT HAD ESSENTIALLY TAKEN A F INANCIAL HELP AGAINST THE BILLS AND THE AMOUNT OF CHARGES PAID WA S WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF BILL AND THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE MON EY WAS SO UTILIZED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD T HAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR BRINGING THE F ACTORING CHARGES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(28A) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194A . 6.3 I FURTHER FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON B Y THE APPELLANT ARE ALL ON THE ISSUE OF DISCOUNTING CHARGES IN RESP ECT OF BILL DISCOUNTING AND NONE ON THE FACTORING FACILITY. EVE N THE CSOT CIRCULAR NO. 65 DATED TO 02.09.1971 WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE HON'BLE COURTS IN THESE JUDGEMENTS DOES NOT DEA L WITH THE FACTORING CHARGES. THE SAID CIRCULAR DEALS WITH THE DISCOUNTING 7 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 CHARGES ON THE DISCOUNTING OF BILLS. HENCE, THE CAS E OF APPELLANT IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS FROM THE CASES RELIED UPON AND THEREFORE THOSE DECISIONS DO COME TO ITS RESCUE. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THE PAYMENTS TO GTF BECAUSE OF ITS BEING A SUBSIDIARY OF SBI. THE FACT THAT NO OTHER PERSON MA KING A PAYMENT TO IT OR THE APPELLANT ITSELF DID NOT DEDUCT TAX IN THE EARLIER YEARS CANNOT ABSOLVE THE APPELLANT FROM DISCHARGING ITS L EGAL OBLIGATION. 6.4 MOREOVER, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, GTF IS AN NBFC AND NOT A BANKING COMPANY GOVERNED BY THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS, THEREFORE, FOUND TO BE BASELESS AND DEVOID OF ANY MERITS AND ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE R EJECTED. 6.5 ALTHOUGH, THE ID. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE RE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACTORING AND BILL DISCOUNTING A ND IF THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCES AT ALL, THE SAME PROVE THAT BOTH AR E NOTHING BUT THE SAME TYPE OF FACILITY, BUT IT COULD NOT MEANINGFULL Y COUNTER THE DIFFERENCES ELABORATELY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AO I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CONTENTIONS / AVERMENTS MADE BY THE APPE LLANT ON THE DIFFERENCES POINTED OUT BETWEEN BILL DISCOUNTING AN D FACTORING BY THE AO ARE TOO SHALLOW SUPERFACIAL AND HENCE NOT TE NABLE. 6.6 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DETAILED DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT THE LD. AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.93,6 8,870/- INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS NO TDS WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 4 ARE REJECTED. 6. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN SECOND APPE AL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTORING CHARGES IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS INTEREST AND IS NOT LIABLE TO BE D EDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 194A OF THE ACT. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, LD. AR RELIED ON T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MKJ ENTE RPRISES REPORTED IN GA 8 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 NO.1927 OF 2014 (KOL.). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CARGILL GLOBAL TRADING (P.) LTD. REPORTED IN 335 ITR 94 (DEL.) IS ALSO CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTORING CHARGES/BILL DISCOUNTING CHARGES IS N OT COMING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF DEFINITION OF INTEREST U/S 2(28A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VECT OR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 357 ITR 642 (ALL.) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT AMOUNTS ARE NOT OUTSTANDING AS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, N O DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE. 8. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT PAGE 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAD LISTED OUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FACTORING AND BI LL/INVOICING DISCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS PER T HE TERMS OF AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND GTF, THE DISCOUNTING CHAR GES MENTIONED THEREIN IS ACTUALLY INTEREST COMPONENT ON THE LOAN. HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. MKJ ENTERPRISES L IMITED (GA NO.1927 OF 2014, COPY ENCLOSED) WAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERING A CASE WHERE FACTORING CHARGES TANTAMOUNT TO INTEREST AND WHETHER THE TAX IS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE SAME. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT FACTORING CHARGES WERE NOT INTEREST AND AS SUCH, 9 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW :- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW TO HOLD INTER ALIA THAT THE FACTORING CHARGES OF RS.56,33,112/- WAS NOT INTER EST AND AS SUCH PROVISION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE SAI D ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE, HENCE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE SAID ACT WAS NOT WARRANTED, IGNORING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSES ITSELF SHOWN THIS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HE AD INTEREST IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS SUCH DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS RIGHTLY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCT ION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 194A. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, ON CONSIDERING THE ABOVE QUESTION OF LAW, HELD CATEGORICALLY THAT FACTORING CHARGES ON SALE CANNOT BE TERMED AS INTEREST. IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, WE HOLD T HAT THE FACTORING CHARGES WILL NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(28A) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND AS SUCH, THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015/TS 10 ITA NO.5419/DEL/2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-IX, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.