Assessee is  a manufacturer of computers and peripherals. It supplied its product to distributors.  Assessing Officer held that as assessee had paid money to distributors therefore, it amounted to commission liable to TDS.  On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held  that in order to ensure that sale of product was not adversely affected by unfavourable market changes, assessee had suggested distributors to sell products at price less than actual price mentioned in invoices raised by assessee.  Further, such contingencies arose on several occasions due to festival discounts, sudden change in market value, introduction of similar products etc. and distributors sold product at their risk to dealers.  Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A).  High Court held that in view of factual findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) that payment from distributor to assessee had no link with further sale made by distributor and same having been confirmed by Tribunal, said payment could not be treated as commission or brokerage as described in Explanation to section 194H. SLP dismissed. Followed,  CIT (TDS) v. Acer India (P.) Ltd. [2024] 298 Taxman 748/463 ITR 676 (SC), SLP filed against impugned order of High Court was to be dismissed. (AY. 2012-13,  2015-16)