9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1482 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - indeterminate value of bye products retained free of cost by the rice millers in accordance with policy framework and guidelines of the Central Government agency - consideration in kind - Held that - As decided in ITO VERSUS AHAAR CONSUMER PRODUCTS (P) LTD. 2011 (2) TMI 488 - ITAT DELHI occurrence of just exchange of goods for goods and does not involve any cash outflow. Although services were taken it is difficult to say that the residuals and the losses left by the assessee in favour of AIL are purely consideration for the job that is done. The market fluctuations in the price structure of the raw material and the end product cannot be just ignored in the whole transaction nor the process loss. The process loss could be either more or less than the percentage agreed to between the parties - the residual that is left by the assessee apart from covering the labour cost of processing also includes the protection from market fluctuations as also protection from adverse process loss. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 194C on the cost of by-products retained by millers. 2. Justification for deleting the demand created on account of non/short deduction of tax under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 194C on the cost of by-products retained by millers: The primary issue revolves around whether the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are applicable to the cost of by-products retained by millers free of cost. The Revenue contended that the assessee should have deducted tax at source (TDS) on the total milling charges, which include both the cash payment and the value of by-products retained by the millers. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the by-products, such as rice bran, khudi phak, and husk, are part of the milling charges paid in kind, and thus, TDS should be deducted on the total value, not just the cash component of ?15 per quintal. The AO's position was that the modest cash milling charge was supplemented by the value of the by-products, which should be included in the total milling charges for TDS purposes. This view was based on the understanding that the by-products are part of the payment for milling services and should be treated as such under Section 194C. 2. Justification for deleting the demand created on account of non/short deduction of tax under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A): The CIT(A) and the ITAT both concluded that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the value of the by-products. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench, which had previously examined a similar issue and found that no tax was deductible under Section 194C for such transactions. The CIT(A) held that the facts of the present case were identical to those in the Delhi ITAT case, except for the additional cash payment of ?15 per quintal, on which TDS was duly deducted. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the rule of consistency and referencing the case of 'Ahaar Consumer Products (P) Ltd.' where it was held that the exchange of goods (wheat for atta/dalia) did not constitute a payment requiring TDS under Section 194C. The ITAT found that the assessee's practice of compensating millers with by-products was akin to a barter system, not a cash transaction, and thus did not necessitate TDS. The ITAT also referenced its own decision in the case of 'M/s. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Nawanshahar vs. ITO, TDS-1, Jalandhar,' which dealt with similar facts and legal issues, and concluded that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on the value of by-products. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals, confirming that the provisions of Section 194C did not apply to the by-products retained by the millers. The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned and consistent with prior decisions, thereby upholding the deletion of the demand created under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The judgment emphasized the principle of consistency and the interpretation that the transactions were not subject to TDS under Section 194C.
|
