9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not in dispute that the supplier was procuring the equipments as well as raw materials and supplying a Chinese food to the assessee, then such a supply agreement cannot comes into the category of works contract so as to invoke TDS provision u/s.194C. Thus, the order of the Id. CIT(A) holding that it is a goods of supply and purchase of material on which VAT has been charged then such a payment for supply was not entail TDS provision u/s 194C and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6858/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member Appellant by: Shri G. Johnson, Sr.DR Respondent by: Shri Madhur Aggarwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Enterprise. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance holding that payment to Dawa Enterprises was for supply of material and not for works contract. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. The sole issue in the grounds raised is in relation to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of tax at source on the payment of ₹ 2,78,67,446/- paid to Dawa Enterprises . 4. We have heard the rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. According to the Assessing Officer payment to Dawa Enterprise is for works contract whereas according to the assessee contract is of supply of Chinese food and thus it is a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of purchase and sale respectively on goods that are entirely procured and manufactured by the supplier. It is not the case that the materials are supplied by the appellant nor has the AO brought any facts to the contrary rr, record to prove that the agreement falls within the expanded scope of a works contract envisaged u/s 194C. In the case of CIT vs. Reebok India Company (306 ITR 124) the Delhi High Court has held that when there is a finding of fact that the transaction between the assessee and the manufacturer is one of sale of goods and is not in the nature of a works contract and the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194 C read with Section 40(a)(ia), no substantial question of law arises for consideration. I am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
