2015 (3) TMI 669 - AT - Income Tax

Non deduction of TDS on composite work contract u/s 194C - supply of plant & machinery of windmill, for civil/electrical works and erection and commission of windmill - interest demand for differential TDS was raised u/s 201 & 201(1A) - Held that - It has not been disputed that the assessee acquired the windmill plant by way of different invoices. The amount referred to in column no. 5 of the above table represents the amount of the purchases of the machinery and column no. 6 represents the contract value liable for Section 194C. The assessee has not deducted TDS on the amounts mentioned at column no. 5 which is not a contract amount but it is the amount of purchases. We are unable to agree with the ld. DR that because there was turnkey project, therefore, each and every part of the transactions comprised therein is liable for TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Various benches of ITAT as referred to above have held that in case of composite contract also, the portion of purchase of machinery is to be excluded while determining the liability u/s 194C of the Act. In view of these facts, material on record , arguments raised before us and the case laws cited, we hold that the assessee is not liable for deduction of tax u/s 194C on the amounts of purchase of windmill machinery. The consequent demand raised in this behalf is deleted. - Decided in fvaour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the assessee's contracts with Enercon (India) Ltd. and Sulzon Group for windmill projects constitute composite work contracts liable for TDS deduction under section 194C.
- Whether the AO was correct in holding the assessee in default under section 201 for non-deduction of TDS on payments for supply of plant and machinery.
- Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the AO's orders.
- Whether the assessee's liability for TDS deduction on the purchase of windmill machinery was correctly determined.
- Whether the interest demand under section 201(1A) was valid.

Analysis:

1. Composite Work Contracts and TDS Deduction:
The dispute revolved around the nature of the contracts between the assessee and Enercon (India) Ltd. and Sulzon Group for windmill projects. The AO held that these contracts were composite work contracts and subject to TDS under section 194C. The ld. CIT(A) agreed, stating that the contracts were part of a single work contract, and the assessee's attempt to divide them artificially was to reduce TDS liability. The Tribunal, however, disagreed, citing precedents where the purchase of machinery was considered separate from other work aspects. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that TDS was not applicable to the purchase of windmill machinery.

2. Default under Section 201:
The AO had raised demands against the assessee for not deducting TDS on various payments related to the windmill projects. The ld. CIT(A) upheld these demands. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee's transactions for the purchase of machinery did not fall under the purview of TDS deduction. Therefore, the demands raised under section 201 were deemed invalid and deleted.

3. Interest Demand under Section 201(1A):
The ld. CIT(A) had upheld the interest demand under section 201(1A) while absolving the assessee of the TDS liability. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and case laws presented, concluded that the assessee was not liable for TDS on the purchase of windmill machinery. Consequently, the interest demand under section 201(1A) was also set aside.

4. Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation:
The Tribunal extensively referred to previous judgments and legal interpretations to support its decision. It highlighted that even in composite contracts, the purchase of machinery could be treated separately for TDS purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "turnkey project" did not automatically imply TDS liability on all aspects of the contract, especially when distinct transactions were involved.

5. Final Decision:
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, overturning the orders of the AO and ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal ruled that the demands for TDS deduction on the purchase of windmill machinery were unjustified, leading to the deletion of the demands raised under sections 201 and 201(1A). The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the contracts, legal provisions, and precedents cited during the proceedings.