9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 546 - HC - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - Payments made to agents of non-resident shipping companies - In respect of Ocean Freight and Inland Haulage Charges (IHC) - bills of lading - scope of Section 172 in the context of Section 194C - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the question whether the payees in the instant case were agents of the non-resident shipping companies is a question of fact which has been decided against the Revenue concurrently by both the CIT (Appeals) as well as the ITAT. As already noticed both the CIT (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have based their conclusions upon an appreciation of the evidence and held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are not attracted. We accordingly hold that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal - The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding TDS on Ocean Freight and Inland Haulage Charges (IHC) paid by a freight forwarding business. Analysis: Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolved around the applicability of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the deduction of tax at source on payments for carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than by railways. The respondent, a freight forwarding business, contended that the payments made for Ocean Freight and IHC were not subject to TDS based on Circular No. 723 issued by the CBDT, which explained the scope of Section 172 in the context of Section 194C. Section 172 deals with the levy and recovery of tax in the case of a non-resident ship owner, emphasizing ship-wise and journey-wise recovery of tax. Issue 2: Subsequently, the assessing officer issued notices under Section 133(6) to confirm if certain payee companies were agents of non-resident shipping companies. It was concluded that Section 172 would not apply to IHC payments, and since the agents were resident companies, Section 194C was deemed applicable. Consequently, the assessing officer declared the assessee as an 'assessee in default' for failing to deduct TDS, assessing a liability of Rs. 7,78,273 on IHC and Ocean Freight payments along with interest. Issue 3: In the appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT (Appeals) held that even if the agent was a resident, they received payments on behalf of non-resident shippers. It was further established that IHC fell under Section 172(8) of the Act, absolving the assessee from TDS liability on such payments. The appeals of the respondent were allowed based on these findings. Issue 4: The department's appeal to the ITAT was dismissed, emphasizing that payments made to foreign shipping lines or their agents were covered under Section 172, and confirmations were submitted by all agents for filing returns under this section. The ITAT concurred with the CIT (Appeals) findings, stating that the provisions of Section 194C were not attracted in this case. Issue 5: The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, stating that the determination of whether the payees were agents of non-resident shipping companies was a question of fact. Both the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT had concluded, based on evidence, that Section 194C was not applicable in the present circumstances. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law arose in the case.
|
