2017 (3) TMI 877 - HC - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - liablilty to deduct any TDS - possession of the machinery temporarily was passed to the assessee after entering into agreement with the lender - Held that - Agreement of hire which was subject matter of interpretation in the case in hand was in regard to machinery and equipment owned by lender i.e. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Since these machineries and equipments are of big size for the purpose of their operation requisite staff etc. was to be provided by lender but hirer was to make payment of only hire charges. The assessee was not under an obligation to carry out the work as it was not under the control of the lender and the possession of the machinery temporarily was passed to the assessee after entering into agreement with the lender. Therefore in the present case taking of the machinery and equipment on hire would not amount to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in section 194C of the Act. The said contract i.e. taking of machinery and equipment on hire also cannot be treated with a contract for supply of labour. Therefore the provisions of section 194C of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the assessee s case as such no disallowance was called for u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of payments made without deduction of TDS under Section 194C.

Analysis:
The High Court's judgment involved interpreting Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the disallowance of payments made without deducting TDS under Section 194C. The appeal arose from a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deletion of disallowances amounting to ?13,32,39,725 made by the assessee to M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. The key issue was whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS under Section 194C on the payments made. The Tribunal observed that the agreement in question was for hiring machinery and equipment owned by the lender, where the hirer was only required to pay hire charges and not carry out any work. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee was not obligated to carry out any work and did not have control over the machinery, the provisions of Section 194C were not applicable, and hence, no disallowance was warranted under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

The Tribunal's decision was supported by a precedent set by the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd., where it was held that hiring of ships for business purposes did not constitute a contract for carrying out any work under Section 194C. The Court emphasized that normal hire involves temporary possession and use of property for compensation, which does not equate to carrying out work as per Section 194C. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the hiring agreement in the present case did not fall under the purview of Section 194C was upheld by the High Court.

The appellant's counsel attempted to challenge the Tribunal's findings by presenting the relevant part of the hire agreement, but upon examination, it was evident that the agreement solely pertained to the hiring of machines in a running condition for which hire charges were paid. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling against the Revenue on the substantial question of law raised. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the non-applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) in the case at hand.