9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1369 - HC - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - TDS on work contract - nature of Composite contract - whether composite or not - contract agreements on Total Turnkey Basis or Partial Turnkey Basis - setting up of its electrical sub-stations - Held that - In view of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. (KTPCL)(2012 (6) TMI 204 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) the issue is answered in favour of assessee subject to result of the SLP. Parties will be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP.
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Applicability of TDS on payments made under contracts - Impact of Supreme Court judgments on the interpretation of the law Analysis: 1. The High Court addressed two appeals challenging the Tribunal's decision regarding the applicability of TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue revolved around whether the payments made by the assessee were liable for TDS deduction. 2. The Department contended that TDS should be deducted as per the law, even if the Tribunal's view was contrary. The crux of the matter was the interpretation and application of Section 194C in the context of the payments made under contracts. 3. The Court examined Circular No. 681, dated 8th March, 1994, which elaborated on the provisions of Section 194C. The Circular highlighted that the section applied to various types of contracts, including service contracts, transport contracts, and labor contracts. It emphasized that TDS deductions were mandatory in certain scenarios. 4. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized the broad interpretation of "any work" under Section 194C, which encompassed a wide range of contracts. The judgments clarified that the section applied to contracts for services, labor, and works, irrespective of specific contract types. 5. The Court also considered judgments from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, which influenced the decision in favor of the assessee. The outcome was subject to the pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, indicating that parties would abide by the Supreme Court's final ruling. 6. The High Court's decision favored the assessee based on the Karnataka High Court judgment, pending the Supreme Court's final decision. The Court directed that parties would adhere to the Supreme Court's ruling once the SLP was concluded, ensuring compliance with the law as declared by the highest judicial authority. 7. The appeals were disposed of with the understanding that the judgment would be binding, and the Assessing Officer would follow the law pronounced by the Supreme Court in the ongoing SLP. The Court emphasized providing reasonable notice to the assessee in case the Supreme Court's decision favored the Department, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal directives.
|
