9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 495 - AT - Income TaxTDS - Vehicle hiring charges - 194C or 194I - Held that - As decided in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT (2011 (3) TMI 812 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) passengers were transported by the driver and vehicles of the vehicle owner/contractor and in consideration of that the vehicle owner/contractors were paid by the assessee the fixed amount. Therefore, sub-clause (c) to Explanation (iii) of sec.194C would apply in the case of the assessee. The definition of rent does not provide any item for vehicle hire charges. Following aforesaid decision, it is held that assessee s case falls under sub-clause (c) to Explanation (iii) of sec. 194C and, accordingly, order of CIT(A) is upheld in holding that the assessee has rightly deducted tax as per provisions of sec. 194C and there is no case of short deduction - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
- Interpretation of tax deduction provisions under sections 194C and 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for vehicle hiring charges. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of tax deduction provisions The case involved appeals by the Revenue against orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 regarding tax deduction on professional and hiring charges. The AO raised a demand for short deduction of tax on hiring charges, contending that tax should have been deducted under section 194-I instead of 194C. The ld. CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the payments for vehicle hiring were covered under section 194C, not 194-I, as the vehicles were not at the disposal of the assessee but were provided by contractors for transportation services. The ld. CIT(A) considered the nature of the transactions and relevant CBDT circulars in making this determination. Issue 2: Grounds of appeal by the Revenue The Revenue raised grounds of appeal challenging the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that vehicle hiring falls under section 194-I post an amendment to the Act. They also contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal on the issue of short TDS deduction without considering a specific CBDT circular. However, the Tribunal noted that the facts were not in dispute, and the assessee had made payments for hiring vehicles for staff supervision. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, citing various Tribunal decisions supporting the assessee's position. Issue 3: Tribunal's decision and reasoning The Tribunal reviewed the submissions of both parties and the material on record. It noted that the payments for vehicle hire charges were for transportation services provided by contractors, not for the vehicles themselves. The Tribunal referenced past decisions where similar cases were held to fall under section 194C, not 194-I, due to the nature of the arrangements and the absence of property transfer rights. The Tribunal found no contrary material presented by the Revenue against the decisions cited by the assessee's counsel. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s ruling that the assessee correctly deducted tax under section 194C, rejecting the Revenue's grounds of appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years, affirming the ld. CIT(A)'s orders. The Tribunal held that the payments for vehicle hiring charges were covered under section 194C, as the arrangements were for transportation services and not for the vehicles themselves. The Tribunal's decision was based on the nature of the transactions, relevant legal provisions, and past Tribunal decisions supporting the assessee's position.
|
