2014 (11) TMI 948 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) deleted Applicability of section 194C TDS not deducted on payment to sub-contract business of hiring, plying goods carrier - Held that - The Tribunal rightly relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax v. Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. 2006 (1) TMI 60 - MADRAS High Court wherein it has been held that hiring of ships for the purpose of using the same by Company would not amount to a contract for carrying out any work and payment of hire charges for taking temporary possession of the ships by the assessee would not fall within the provision of Section 194C of the Act - the assessee has hired trucks on payment of hire charges for utilizing the same in its business, such payment of hire charges would not fall within the provisions of Section 194C of the Act thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deletion of addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Determination of the applicability of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
3. Consideration of Explanation II(c) to Section 194C(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which deleted the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 1,52,87,975. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the payment in question did not fall under the ambit of Section 194C of the Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal primarily relied on a previous decision of the High Court in a similar case involving hiring of ships for transport of coal. The Court in that case had determined that hiring of ships did not amount to a contract for carrying out any work under Section 194C of the Act. Similarly, in the present case, the respondent/assessee had hired trucks for their own use, and the payment of hire charges did not fall within the provisions of Section 194C. The Court found the facts to be identical to the previous case and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Issue 3:
The Revenue attempted to argue for reconsideration of the issue in light of a Supreme Court remand order in a different case involving tax deduction on payments to truck operators. However, the Court noted that the previous High Court decision had already addressed the applicability of Section 194C to freight paid to truck owners. Since no appeal had been filed against the previous decision, and the facts in the present case were similar, the Court found no reason to differ with the previous decision and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the applicability of previous judgments in similar cases and finding no substantial question of law to consider in the current appeal.