9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1865 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - payment made by the assessee to M/s.Zen Chinese Foods for supply of chinese good was as per the terms of contract - Contractor and Contractee between the owner and the supplier as per terms of agreement in the name and style of FOOD SUPPLY ARRANGEMENT - HELD THAT - Assessee had entered into an agreement viz., Food Supply Arrangement with M/s. Zen Chinese Food, whereas assessee was the owner of the restaurant and M/s. Zen Chinese Food was a supplier. The relevant terms of the contract has already been incorporated above from which it can be seen that it mis purely a supply arrangement and there is nothing to interfere that there is any kind of works contract. Here it is not disputed by the department that the supplier was procuring the equipments as well as raw materials and supplying Chinese food to the assessee. Once that is so, then such a supply agreement ostensibly will fall in the category of works contract so as to invoke TDS provision u/s. 194C. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that it is a goods of supply and purchase of material on which VAT has been charged then such a payment for supply will not entail TDS provision u/s.194C and accordingly, no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made. We hold that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made because no TDS provision is applicable u/s 194C on a payment for supply and purchase of material on which VAT has been charged. - Decided against revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C? Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-VIII for the assessment year 2007-08. The revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?1,34,08,792 for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C. The AO disallowed the payment made by the assessee to a supplier for food items, as no TDS was deducted. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, citing a similar issue in the assessment year 2006-07 and holding that the purchases were based on a food supply arrangement agreement. The Tribunal noted that the same issue was considered in the assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that no TDS provision under section 194C applied to payments for supply and purchase of material on which VAT had been charged. 2. The Tribunal referred to the agreement between the assessee and the supplier for a 'Food Supply Arrangement,' where the assessee was the owner and the supplier provided Chinese food. The Tribunal analyzed the terms of the agreement and concluded that it was purely a supply arrangement, not a works contract. Since the supplier procured equipment and raw materials and supplied Chinese food to the assessee, it did not fall under the category of a works contract requiring TDS deduction under section 194C. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision that no TDS provision applied to payments for supply and purchase of material on which VAT had been charged, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. 3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the agreement and the nature of the transaction between the assessee and the supplier. By analyzing the terms of the 'Food Supply Arrangement' agreement and considering the previous year's decision, the Tribunal concluded that the payment made by the assessee for the supply of Chinese food did not attract TDS deduction under section 194C. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction was a supply arrangement where VAT had been charged, and therefore, the provision of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for non-deduction of TDS.
|
