2016 (5) TMI 979 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds - whether the said payments made by the respondent-assessee to KHB and RITES Ltd. are in the nature of consideration paid for works contract? - Held that - CIT(A) correctly held that the entire payment made by the appellant to KHB and Rites are not in the nature of income of the payees, and such entire amounts could not be said to be liable for deduction of tax u/s 194C. In fact, the payment to the extent of remuneration payable to KHB and RITES as percentage of the project cost is in the nature of income of professional/technical and managerial nature liable to deduction of tax u/s 194J. The Assessing Officer is therefore directed to compute the amounts out of payments made by the appellant to KHB and RITES which are remuneration or income in the hands of the payees, and work out the tax deductible u/s 194J. The question is answered accordingly - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(Appeals) for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15.
- Whether payments made to M/s. KHB and M/s. RITES Ltd. are liable for tax deduction under section 194C or section 194J of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue were directed against the order of CIT(Appeals) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, where common issues were involved. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in various aspects related to the payments made to M/s. KHB and M/s. RITES Ltd.

2. The Revenue argued that the payments made to M/s. KHB and M/s. RITES Ltd. should be considered as consideration for works contract under Section 194C. However, the CIT(A) held that the payments were not in the nature of works contract but were for technical and managerial services, thus liable for tax deduction under Section 194J.

3. The CIT(A) found that the agreements with M/s. KHB and M/s. RITES Ltd. indicated they were not contractors for actual construction work but were providing technical and managerial services, acting as agents for contractors. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the amounts as remuneration or income liable for tax deduction under Section 194J.

4. The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the payments were for works contract. However, the CIT(A) had carefully analyzed the agreements and concluded that the payments were for technical services, not falling under Section 194C. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to challenge this finding.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the payments made to M/s. KHB and M/s. RITES Ltd. were for technical services, not works contract, and therefore liable for tax deduction under Section 194J. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the order of CIT(A) was upheld.