9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to enable them to discharge their duties and functions satisfactorily. The CBDT Circular 741 dated 18.04.1996, Circular No. 745 dated 19.07.1996, Circular No. 22/68-ITB dated March 28/May 13, 1968 are also squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Samiti is required to contribute as per Section 18A of the Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Act, 1961, which is a certain percentage of its income and is obligatory on the part of assessee. Therefore, no TDS is liable to be deducted U/s 194C and 194J of the Act. Accordingly, order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 18/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM For The Appellant : Shri Rajesh Ojha (JCIT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed U/s 194C and 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) respectively. The assessee failed to deduct TDS, therefore, the ITO (TDS) gave reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which was replied by the assessee. After considering the assessee s reply, it has been held that RSAMB is an autonomous body and assessed to tax separately. The RSAMB is charging supervision and work charges on Samiti for the construction activity done by it. All these facts showed that the construction work done by RSAMB is covered U/s 194C and liable to deduct TDS on payment made to the Executive Engineer, Dausa. Further, Section 194J is also applicable on contribution made to RSAMB, therefore, he calculated TDS amount at ₹ 1,69,500/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to give aid and grant to Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti to enable them to discharge their duties and functions satisfactorily. I also considered the CBDT Circular 741 dated 18.04.1996 Circular No. 745 dated 19.07.1996, Circular No. 22/68-ITB dated March 28/May 13, 1968 advise non-deduction of tax on interest which is wholly exempt from tax in the hands of the recipient. Where there is no liability of tax in the hands of the recipient of income or the recipient of income has paid tax due on its income, liability of tax u/s 201(1) cannot be imposed on the payer of income. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 293 ITR 226. RSAMB is not liable to pay tax, its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of above discussion it is held that there was no liability to deduct tax by KUMS on the above said payments to RSAMB for construction work and for the contributions made as per section 18A of the Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Act, 1961. Accordingly, it is held that the A.O. was not correct in holding that the appellant was liable to pay tax u/s 201(1) of ₹ 303569/- and interest under section 201(1A) of ₹ 43096/- for not deducting the TDS on the above said payments. The A.O. is directed to delete the demand of ₹ 3,46,665/- raised u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Both the grounds of appeal are allowed. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the ITO (TDS) and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
