9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 194C of the IT Act to the supply of printed packing material. 2. Justification of the demand under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 194C of the IT Act to the Supply of Printed Packing Material: The primary issue in this case is whether the supply of printed packing material (PP woven sacks) by the assessee falls under a works contract as per Section 194C of the IT Act, necessitating the deduction of TDS. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the supply of printed packing material is a works contract because the material is printed with the assessee-company's trade name, logo, contents, and quantity as per its specifications. This specialized skill and the inability to use the printed material in the open market without the prescribed specifications support the AO's view. The AO referred to Circular No. 715 dated 8th August 1995, issued by the CBDT, which supports the interpretation that such transactions are works contracts. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the transaction was purely a purchase and sale, not requiring TDS under Section 194C. The CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's decision in the Wadilal Dairy International Ltd. case, which concluded that similar transactions were purchases, not works contracts. However, the Tribunal found that the facts of the case are more aligned with the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sarvodaya Printing Press vs. State of Maharashtra, where the supply of specially printed material was deemed a works contract. The Tribunal emphasized that the printed material, having no market value without the specific specifications, and the composite nature of the charges, indicate that the transaction is a works contract. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of the intention of the contracting parties and the specific printing requirements, which are not incidental but crucial to the transaction. 2. Justification of the Demand under Section 201(1) and Interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act: The AO's creation of a demand for short deduction of Rs. 92,994 under Section 201(1) and interest of Rs. 10,808 under Section 201(1A) was based on the view that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on the payments for the printed packing material. The CIT(A) had canceled this demand, considering the transaction as a purchase. The Tribunal, however, reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, upholding the AO's action. The Tribunal reiterated that the transaction is a works contract, and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct TDS under Section 194C. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the binding precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Sarvodaya Printing Press and other relevant judicial pronouncements, which clearly classify such transactions as works contracts. Consequently, the Tribunal found the AO's creation of the demand and the charging of interest to be legally correct and justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the supply of printed packing material by the assessee is a works contract under Section 194C of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee was required to deduct TDS on the payments made for such material. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's order, upholding the demand under Section 201(1) and the interest under Section 201(1A). The appeal of the Revenue was accepted.
|
