9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 30.6.2010 in ITA No.222/CHD/2010 for the assessment year 2006-07 claiming following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT was right in holding, that assessee was not liable to deduct the TDS as there was no written or oral agreement between the alleged parties; even in the light of amendment in the statute w.e.f. 01.10.2004 in section 194C(3) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alent to a contract which is envisaged for the purpose of Section 194C of the Act. So, however, in order to prove the applicability of Section 194C, it is further to be seen whether the contract in question has resulted in payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- or in case of more than one payment, the aggregate should have exceeds Rs.50,000/- in a financial year. Normally, each GR is to be treated as a separate contract, but if the goods are transported continuously in pursuance of a contract for specific period of quantity, all GRs relating to that party or quantity should be aggregated for the purposes of deduction of tax at source. This aspect has also been clarified so by the CBDT Circular No.715 dated 08.08.1995. As per the said circular, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down that Section 194C of the Act cannot be invoked to hold the assessee liable for deduction of tax only on the assumption that assessee was having agreement with the parties through whom transportation of goods was carried out. The Hon ble High Court noted the fact position in that case that there was no contract for a specific period or quantity for continuous carriage of goods even when individual GRs are liable to be considered as a contract, because there is no material to show that payment in pursuance to each GR exceeded Rs.20,000/- or payments to one transporter exceeds Rs.50,000/- in the financial year. The Assessing Officer acted only on assumptions that the assessee was having agreement with the parties for continuous transporta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
