TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e charges for utilizing the same in its business, such payment of hire charges would not fall within the provisions of Section 194C of the Act – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against revenue. - T. C. (A). No. 879 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For Appellant :Mr. T. Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT ( Delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 9.9.2011 made in I.T.A.No.2128/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2005-2006, raising the following questions of law: (i)Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer. 2.3. Assailing the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2.4. Calling in question the said order, the Revenue has filed this appeal on the questions of law, referred supra. 3. We heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the order passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. 4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has primarily relied upon the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd., (2006) 282 ITR 3 (Madras) and held as under: 5. We have considered the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In that decision, there was a clear finding that hiring of ships for the purpose of using the same by Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Limited would not amount to a contract for carrying out any work and accordingly, the Court held that payment of hire charges for taking temporary possession of the ships by the assessee would not fall within the provision of Section 194C of the Act. 6. We find that in the present case also the respondent/assessee had hired trucks for his own use, as observed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. When the assessee has hired trucks on payment of hire charges for utilizing the same in its business, such payment of hire charges would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The hiring of ships for the purpose of using the same in the assessee s business would not amount to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in section 194C. The term 'hire' is not defined in the Income-tax Act. So, we have to take the normal meaning of the word 'hire'. Normal hire is a contract by which one gives to another temporary possession and use of the property other than money for payment of compensation and the latter agrees to return the property after the expiry of the agreed period. Therefore, in our view, when the assessee entered into a contract for the purpose of taking temporary possession of ships in the shipping company it could not be construed as if the assessee entered into any contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the provision of section 194C and hence no tax is required to be deducted, and there is no error or infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Hence, we dismiss the above tax case. (emphasis supplied) In the said decision, though this Court had in detail discussed the provision of Section 194C of the Act, the appeal was dismissed at admission stage stating that no question of law arises for consideration. 7. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue tried to persuade us by pleading that the issue should be reconsidered in the light of the remand order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sirmour Truck Operators Unio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
