9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1036 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C OR 194H - contract for supply of labour - Held that - The contract between the assessee and the agencies is a mere contract for supply of labour for execution of work contract as defined under the provisions of section 194C, but not a commission as defined under the provisions of sec. 194HAs decided in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2009-10, we are of the view that the impugned payments are covered under the provisions of section 194C of the Act, but not under the provisions of section 194H of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and circumstances, rightly deleted the additions made by the A.O. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Hence, we inclined to upheld the CIT(A) order and reject the appeals filed by the revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) orders for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 regarding the nature of payments made by NHAI to agencies for Toll fee collection, determining whether TDS should be deducted under section 194C or 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: Issue 1: Nature of Payments The case involved a dispute over the nature of payments made by NHAI to agencies for Toll fee collection. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) contended that the payments were in the nature of commission under section 194H, while the assessee argued that it was a contract for supply of labor under section 194C. The A.O. held that the relationship between NHAI and agencies was that of principal and agent, thus attracting TDS under section 194H. However, the assessee maintained that it was a simple contract for supply of labor, not agency, and TDS was correctly deducted under section 194C. Issue 2: Assessment by CIT(A) The CIT(A) examined the submissions and held that the payments were covered under section 194C, not 194H, as it was a works contract on a principal-to-principal basis. The CIT(A) emphasized that NHAI engaged agencies for manpower supply without obligations, making it a labor supply contract. The CIT(A) disagreed with the A.O.'s interpretation of the contract as agency, leading to the deletion of additions made by the A.O. The Revenue, dissatisfied with the CIT(A)'s decision, appealed to the ITAT. Issue 3: ITAT Decision The ITAT, after considering the arguments and the earlier decision for the assessment year 2009-10, upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The ITAT noted that the contract was for supply of labor, not agency, as per the agreement terms. Referring to the agreement clauses, the ITAT found no elements of principal-to-agent relationship, concluding that TDS under section 194C was correctly deducted. The ITAT emphasized that the nature of work and payment structure supported the labor supply contract interpretation, in line with the earlier decision for the same assessee. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that the payments by NHAI to agencies for Toll fee collection were covered under section 194C, not 194H. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)'s analysis that the contract was for labor supply, not agency, based on the terms of the agreement and payment structure. The cross objections filed by the assessee supporting the CIT(A)'s order were also dismissed.
|
