9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 509 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194J or 194C - tds liability on payment to DBM Geotechnics Construction Pvt. Ltd. for marine geotechnical investigation for rock excavation in Mithi River - Held that - AO is directed to verify and evaluate the tender/contracts under which the payments were made by the assessee to DBM Geotechnics Construction Private Limited during the relevant period to the tune of ₹ 7,59,32,109/- and if the payments were found to be made by the assessee to DBM Geotechnics and Construction Private Limited for the construction of the retaining wall alongwith the bank of Mithi River , then the provision of section 194C shall be applicable so far as deductibility of income tax at source is concerned, while if the payments were made by the assessee to DBM Geotechnics and Construction Private Limited towards marine geotechnical investigation for rock excavation, then provisions of Section 194J will be applicable so far as deductibility of income-tax at source is concerned, as was held by the tribunal vide afore-stated common orders dated 30-01-2017 for AY 2008-09 and 2011-12.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 194C vs. Section 194J for TDS deduction on payments made to M/s. DBM Geotechnics Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2. Determination of interest under Section 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 194C vs. Section 194J for TDS Deduction: Background: The assessee, a local authority, made payments totaling ?7,59,32,109 to M/s. DBM Geotechnics Construction Pvt. Ltd. for services related to rock excavation in Mithi River. The assessee deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C, while the Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the deduction should have been at 10% under Section 194J, treating the services as technical in nature. AO's Findings: The AO concluded that the services provided by DBM were not simple contractual work but involved marine geotechnical investigation requiring specialized technical skills. Thus, the AO held that the services fell under the purview of Section 194J, which mandates a 10% TDS deduction. CIT(A)'s Decision: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the contract involved scientific and technical services rather than mere excavation work. Consequently, the CIT(A) ruled that the assessee should have deducted TDS under Section 194J. Tribunal's Analysis: The tribunal noted that the assessee had awarded two types of contracts to DBM: - Marine geotechnical investigation for rock excavation (covered under Section 194J). - Construction of retaining wall along the bank of Mithi River (covered under Section 194C). The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) might have mistaken the nature of the contract under which the payments were made. Therefore, the tribunal directed the AO to verify the specific contract for which the payments were made during the relevant period. If the payments were for the construction of the retaining wall, Section 194C would apply; if for marine geotechnical investigation, Section 194J would apply. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for verification, instructing that the nature of the payments should be correctly identified to apply the appropriate TDS provisions. 2. Determination of Interest under Section 201(1A): Background: The AO determined that there was a short deduction of TDS amounting to ?60,74,569 and calculated interest under Section 201(1A) at ?9,71,931. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision regarding the interest calculation, noting that the interest should be levied from the date of deduction to the date of actual payment. Tribunal's Analysis: The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that interest under Section 201(1A) should be calculated from the date of deduction to the date of deposit in the government treasury. The tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest based on the correct dates of deduction and payment. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the computation of interest but directed the AO to verify the exact dates for accurate calculation. Final Judgment: The appeals for both assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were allowed for statistical purposes. The AO was directed to verify the nature of the payments and apply the appropriate TDS provisions accordingly. The interest under Section 201(1A) was to be recomputed based on verified dates of deduction and payment.
|
