9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 412 - AT - Income TaxWhether it is a payment being contract of service or a rent for hiring a plant - Circular No. 558 dated 28.3.1990 issued by the CBDT - Rule 8 of the ITAT s Rules - TDS u/s 194I or 194C - On the payments made to the transporters for hiring of busses - The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a government company under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence and manufactures defence equipments for Ministry of Defence - In the circular, board has considered this aspect and was of the view that where a vehicle is given on hire along with provisions of a driver for use of carrying of the passengers for fixed hours than it is a service contract for carrying out the work - the hiring of the buses would not be akin to taking of any plant and machinery on lease - Held that assessee would be liable to deduct the tax on such payment under sec. 194C of the Act and not under sec. 194I of the Act - Decided in favor of the assessee
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee was correct in deducting TDS under sec. 194C instead of sec. 194I on payments made to transporters for hiring buses. Analysis: The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned CIT(Appeals) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The dispute arose when the Assessing Officer held that the assessee should have deducted TDS under sec. 194I instead of sec. 194C on payments made to transporters for hiring buses. The Assessing Officer raised a demand, and the appeals to the CIT(A) did not bring relief to the assessee. In the case, the assessee, a government company under the Ministry of Defence, provided transportation facilities to its employees through buses. The Assessing Officer contended that the hiring of buses should be treated as leasing of plant and machinery, thus requiring TDS deduction under sec. 194I at a higher rate. The assessee argued that it was a service contract falling under sec. 194C for TDS purposes. The ITAT considered similar cases and analyzed the nature of the contract between the assessee and the transporters. The ITAT emphasized the distinction between a service contract and a lease agreement for plant and machinery. The ITAT reviewed the agreement between the assessee and the transporters, noting that the buses remained with the transporters, who were responsible for maintenance and operation. The ITAT concluded that the hiring of buses did not amount to leasing plant and machinery, affirming that TDS should be deducted under sec. 194C and not sec. 194I. The ITAT referred to previous judgments and Circulars to support its decision, highlighting that the nature of the agreement and the responsibilities of the parties indicated a service contract for transportation services. The ITAT dismissed the Assessing Officer's orders and directed the assessee to deduct TDS under sec. 194C. The ITAT's decision was based on the specific terms of the contract and the understanding of the relationship between the assessee and the transporters. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the orders of the Assessing Officer. The ITAT determined that the payments made for hiring buses were covered under sec. 194C, emphasizing the service nature of the contract and the absence of a lease arrangement for plant and machinery. The decision was in line with previous rulings and supported by a detailed analysis of the contractual terms and responsibilities of the parties involved.
|
