9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1617 - AT - Income TaxTDS liability u/s 194C - payment made to contractors - CIT(A)deleted tds liability - Held that - Clause 3(e) and 3(f) clearly shows that the amount of ₹ 10 crores retained by the contractor, M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. from the sale of the scrap is clearly payment received by M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. in lieu of the contract and against the bid of ₹ 99 crores being the final amount due to the contractor. Just because the contract has not been completed for reasons best known to the contractor and the contractee, it does not mean that the payment made by the contractee to the contractor changes its character from payment of consideration to deposit nor can such arrangement be permitted to stop the levy of the dues to the crown. Here clearly, the amount retained by M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. is a part of the total contract and the provisions of Sec. 194C is clearly attracted to the said amount. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is not sustainable on the facts of the case and consequently stands reversed. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues involved:
Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for A.Y 2012-13 and 2013-14 regarding TDS on contract payment. Analysis: 1. Issue of TDS on contract payment: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the CIT(A) order regarding the non-deduction of TDS by the Assessee, Department of Tourism, on a contract with M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. for the removal of a stranded vessel. The Revenue contended that as TDS was not deducted on a retained amount of Rs. 10 crores, levy under sections 201 and 201(1A) was justified for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Assessee argued that the amount retained was a deposit against a bank guarantee and no TDS was liable. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the Assessee, considering the amount as a deposit. However, the ITAT held that the contract terms clearly indicated the retained amount was part of the total consideration, making it subject to TDS under Sec. 194C. Thus, the ITAT reversed the CIT(A) order, allowing the Revenue's appeals. 2. Contractual terms and payment structure: The ITAT analyzed the contract between the Assessee and M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., noting that the contractor was entitled to sell scrap generated and retain sale proceeds to adjust against the bid amount due. The contract specified that no payment or benefit was to be provided until the work was fully completed. The ITAT emphasized that the retained amount of Rs. 10 crores was part of the total contract value of Rs. 99 crores and not a mere deposit. The ITAT held that the contractor had received payment in lieu of the contract, making it subject to TDS obligations under Sec. 194C. The ITAT concluded that the CIT(A)'s decision was unsustainable and reversed it, allowing the Revenue's appeals. 3. Legal interpretation and conclusion: The ITAT's decision highlighted the importance of contractual terms in determining the nature of payments and TDS obligations. By analyzing the contract clauses and payment structure, the ITAT concluded that the amount retained by the contractor was a payment towards the total consideration and not a deposit. This interpretation aligned with the provisions of Sec. 194C, making the amount liable for TDS. The ITAT's ruling emphasized the need for adherence to legal provisions and contract terms in tax matters, ultimately upholding the Revenue's appeals and reversing the CIT(A) order. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the case and the ITAT's thorough examination of the contractual terms to determine the applicability of TDS on the retained amount, ultimately leading to the reversal of the CIT(A) decision in favor of the Revenue.
|
