Questions raised before the High court was; ”Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the CIT (A) and holding that the amount retained by a bank/credit card agency out of the sale consideration of the tickets booked through credit cards is not covered under the definition of “commission or brokerage” given in the Explanation (i) to section 194H of the Act and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H in respect of this amount?”

“(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in holding that the use of lounge premises paid by the assessee were payments for contract of work under section 194C of the I.T. Act and not in the nature of rent as per section 1941 of the I.T. Act”

Following the ratio in CIT v. JDS Apparsal Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 454 (Delhi) (HC) first question is answered in favour of the assessee.  As regards  question no (b) Following the Japan Airlines Company Ltd  (2015) 377 ITR   372  (SC) has  overruled such decision of Delhi High Court. Supreme Court approved the view of Madras High Court in case of CIT v  Singapore Airlines Ltd (2013) 358 ITR 237 (Mad.)(HC) . (ITA No. 628 of 2018 dt 23 -04 2019 )(AY. 2009-10)