2010 (4) TMI 295 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction of TDS u/s 194C demand u/s 201(1) - Income Tax Officer (TDS) Hisar noticed that the assessee-General Manager Haryana Roadways Hisar entered into a contract with the Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited Gurgaon (HRECL) for fabrication of bodies of buses but failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Act - The Income Tax Officer (TDS) Hisar treated the assessee in default and raised a demand of Rs. 76, 120/- in respect of the Financial Year 2006-07 vide order dated 29.8.2008 passed under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act (A-1).- ITAT held that 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 same are liable to be dismissed. From the categorical findings it is evident that Haryana Roadways did not purchase any bus chasis and therefore there was no question of any contract between Haryana Roadways through its Transport Commissioner and Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited. It is a simple case of supply of buses by the Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited to the Haryana Roadways. in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding tax deduction at source.
2. Determination of whether a contract was for supply of goods or executing works contract under Section 194C.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT involved a series of appeals by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging orders related to tax deduction at source under Section 194C. The appeals raised substantial questions of law regarding the correctness of upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the demand created by the Assessing Officer under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act due to the failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of Section 194C. The primary issue revolved around whether the contract in question was for the supply of goods or for executing a works contract, impacting the applicability of tax deduction at source requirements.

The case involved the assessee, a General Manager at Haryana Roadways, who entered into a contract with Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Limited for fabrication of bus bodies without deducting tax at source under Section 194C. The Income Tax Officer treated the assessee in default and raised a demand, which led to subsequent appeals and legal proceedings. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal examined the nature of the contract and concluded that it was a case of supply of goods rather than executing a works contract, based on the specifics of the transaction and the ownership transfer of the bus bodies to the government after payment.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 194C(1) of the Act, which require payment to a resident for carrying out work under a contract between the contractor and the government. In this case, the Court found that there was no such contract for carrying out work, and the transaction between the parties was a straightforward supply of buses. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that there was no merit in challenging the lower authorities' decisions. The judgment clarified that the situation did not involve a works contract as contemplated under Section 194C, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Section 194C, in determining the applicability of tax deduction at source requirements. The Court's analysis focused on the nature of the contract and the distinction between supply of goods and works contract, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals based on the lack of merit in challenging the lower authorities' decisions.