2011 (5) TMI 822 - AT - Income Tax

TDS - assessee had not deducted TDS - Assessing Officer had held that the provisions of sec. 194C did apply to the assessee as the packing materials and stationery were printed with the specifications of the assessee as also the logo of the assessee. It was the submission that as the work done by the vendors was in fact work contract the provisions of sec. 194C did apply and the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the payments to the suppliers Held that - ownership in the packing material is passed on to the assessee after receipt of these packing materials by the assessee after being subjected to quality verification as against the purchase orders for the respective quantity placed by the assessee transaction involved in the present case is a contract for sale and not a contract for carrying out any works appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding TDS deduction on payments to suppliers for packing materials and printing & stationery.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-IV, Chennai for the assessment year 2005-06 involved the interpretation of whether the provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applied to the assessee, who was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cycles and spare parts. The Revenue contended that the packing materials and printing & stationery supplied to the assessee, customized with the company's specifications and logo, attracted TDS deduction under section 194C. The Assessing Officer raised a demand on the assessee for not deducting TDS, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the authorized representative argued that the transaction was a sale and not a works contract, citing decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in similar cases.

The Tribunal examined the invoices for the purchase of packing materials and printing & stationery, which indicated payment of excise duty and sales tax by the vendors. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, the Tribunal held that the transaction in question was a contract for sale and not for carrying out works. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment of excise duty and sales tax on the supplies supported the conclusion that it was a sale transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) that the provisions of section 194C did not apply to the assessee in this case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the transaction as a sale rather than a works contract, in line with the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. The payment of excise duty and sales tax on the supplies further supported this conclusion, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the order of the CIT(A).