2014 (5) TMI 146 - HC - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - Business of providing communication facilities Transaction constitutes works contract or not u/s 194C of the Act - Payment made for obtaining SIM card & scratch card Held that - The word work as occur u/s 194C(1) has been explained to include manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer Relying upon CIT-XVII, Delhi vs- Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 839 - SUPREME COURT - the assessees did not supply any material whatsoever to the manufacturer/supplier for the supply of SIM/scratch cards as per their requirement or specification, thus, the transaction cannot be treated as a contract for carrying out works within the meaning of the word work used u/s 194(1) of the Act, before its amendment. Even if the first part of the amendment i.e., sub-clause(e) of Clause(iv) of Section 194C is applied, the case of the assessees would not be covered by the clause since the assessees did not supply any material to the manufacturers - placing of orders by the assessees to the manufacturers/suppliers to supply SIM/scratch cards as per their requirements cannot be treated as contract for carrying out works within the meaning u/s 194C(1) of the Act as it existed prior to its amendment Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act regarding the payment made for obtaining SIM card and scratch card.
2. Application of Section 194C in the context of supply of SIM/scratch cards by the assessees.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act concerning the payment made for obtaining SIM card and scratch card used in the business of the assessees' mobile service. The Appellate Authorities were tasked with determining whether the payment made for these cards constitutes a "works contract" and if the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are applicable for tax deduction at source. The crux of the matter lies in whether the order to supply SIM/scratch cards, as per the assessees' specifications, qualifies as a "work" under Section 194C.

Issue 2:
The second issue at hand involves the application of Section 194C in the specific context of the supply of SIM/scratch cards by the assessees. The Assessing Officer initially held that the order placed by the assessees to the manufacturers/suppliers for these cards falls under the purview of Section 194C, necessitating tax deduction at source. However, the First Appellate Authority reversed this decision, emphasizing that the specific job required to supply these cards with the assessees' details constitutes "work" under the Act.

Judicial Precedent:
The judgment also references a similar situation considered by the Supreme Court in a previous case, where the Court examined the applicability of Section 194C both before and after its amendment by the Finance Act. The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted the importance of the specific terms and conditions of the transaction in determining whether it qualifies as a "contract for carrying out works" under the Act.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the High Court, in line with the Supreme Court's precedent, concluded that the assessees' transactions for the supply of SIM/scratch cards did not amount to a contract for carrying out works under Section 194C of the Act. The Court noted that the assessees did not supply any material to the manufacturers/suppliers, a crucial factor in determining the applicability of the section. Even after considering the post-amendment provisions, the Court found that the assessees' case did not fall within the scope of a works contract. Consequently, both substantial questions of law were decided in favor of the assessees, leading to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the revenue.