9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not a works contract liable to TDS u/s 194C but it is a sale transaction – ITAT observed that From the facts narrated by the department itself, it is clear that Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd., Gurgaon manufactured and fabricated the bus bodies as per specification given by the Transport Commissioner and Secretary (Transport) to Govt. of Haryana and the ownership of the vehicle passed on to the Govt. of Haryana through Transport Commissioner and Secretary (Transport) after full payment is made by Transport Commissioner, Haryana Roadways. The manufacturer and fabricator of the bus bodies also charged sales tax and VAT as applicable – Held that: - that there is no merit in these appeals warranting their admission and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject matter of challenge. The following substantial questions of law have been raised by the revenue in ITA No. 21 of 2010:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), deleting the demand created by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is right in law in holding that contract was for supply of goods and not a case of executing works contract ignoring the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" It is pertinent to notice that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jhajjar, in ITA Nos. 79 and 80/RTK/2008-09, while allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 11.12.2008 (A-2). Thereafter the revenue preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi, against the order of the CIT (A), Rohtak. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground that the contract was for supply and was not a works contract. The Tribunal followed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh, in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra, in ITA No. 1001 and 1002/Chd/2007, dated 22.7.2008, against which ITA Nos. 131 and 132 of 2009 have been filed. The finding recorded in para 11 of the order by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Haryana Roadways. The supply of buses as such has been subjected to charge of Sales Tax and VAT. We may examine Section 194C(1) of the Act, which envisages payment of any sum to any resident for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and Central or State Government etc. In the present case there is no such contract for carrying out any contract nor the expression 'Contractor' could be imputed to any one of the parties. Therefore, no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court. These appeals are wholly without merit and the same are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
