Tribunal held that  the assessee has only purchased a part of the loan by making the upfront payment and allowing the originating NBFCs to retain part interest on such loan paid by the borrowers. There is no material available on record to show that the assessee borrowed any funds or incurred any debt from the NBFC. Therefore, in the absence of any funds borrowed or debt incurred by the assessee from the NBFC, the part interest allowed to be retained back by the originating NBFC cannot be said to be interest within the meaning of S. 2(28A). Under S. 194A, the payment must be in the nature of interest in order to make the payer responsible for deducting tax at the time of payment or credit of such income. Therefore, though the payment by the borrower of the loan,  in the nature of interest, when the same is allowed to be retained with the originating NBFC by the assessee under the tripartite agreement, the nature of the same is converted into a consideration for the purchase of 90 per cent of the pool of assets. The nature of income in the hands of the recipient and the nature of expenditure of said sum by that person may not always be the same. Therefore, it is not necessary that what is received as interest is also interest when paid, particularly in the absence of any money borrowed or debt incurred. Accordingly, there is  no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax at source under S. 194A. Accordingly  levy of tax under S 201(1) and levy of interest under S. 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS under S. 194A is not sustainable. As the assessee has purchased a pool of loans from NBFC by way of direct assignment of part interest allowed to be retained back by the originating NBFC  cannot be said to be interest within the meaning of section 2(28A) therefore no liability to deduct tax at source under S.194A. Since the NBFC was not acting as an agent of the assessee in respect of loans advanced to the borrowers, the provisions of S. 194H is also not applicable.     (AY. 2012-13 to 2019-20)