9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore submitted that the submissions made by them in the case of one appeal would be applicable to the other and therefore both the appeals can be heard together. We therefore proceed to dispose of both the appeals by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and thus proceed with the facts in the case of ITA NO. 380/A/2011. 3. The facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 4. In this case a survey was carried out on 5.2.2009 for verification of proper compliance of various TDS provisions. During the course of survey it was found that Assessee had paid hiring charges for hiring of various assets like vehicles, trailors, cranes, equipment etc. It was noticed that Assessee had deducted tax under the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rate of 10%. It is seen that the A.O. has referred to the contract with John Energy Ltd. and concluded that other contracts are similar and that in the said contract John Energy Ltd. the word used was hire of 3 numbers of 50 Ton capacity work over rigs for a period of 2 years. However, this transaction is not falling in the year under consideration. The appellant has, therefore, claimed that such observation cannot be applied. Apart from this, it is submitted that the A.O. has not referred to the entire contract. The contract is that of carrying out operation and it requires to compress natural gas and delivery of such gas as per satisfied was a composite contract. In so far as the contracts for vehicles are concerned, it is shown by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in deleting the order passed u/s.201 (1) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 4,52,09,407/- and interest charge under section 201 (1A) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 99,46,067/- even though specific hiring & leasing agreement were executed with the parties which is subject to TDS u/s. 194-1 of the I.T. Act. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that after 13.7.2006 the provision of 1941 is applicable on hiring charges of vehicles for which cover uses of plant and machinery and not the provision of 194C of I.T. Act. 6. Though the Revenue has raised two different grounds but both the grounds are interconnected and therefore considered together. 7. Before us, ld. D.R took us through the order of A.O and supported his order and submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee by holding as under:- 12. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee paid the following amounts towards rig services, crane hire charges and DG Set hire charges (i)Rig services drilling Rs,52,20,455 (ii)Crane Hire Charges Rs, 6,16,917 (iii)DG Set hire charges Rs, 6,71,521 Total Rs.65,08,893 TDS was effected by the assessee in respect of the above payments in terms of S.194C of the Act, whereas the Assessing Officer for the following reasons held that these payments are liable for TDS under S. 1941 of the Act- (a)In view of the amendment to S.80I, rent paid on machinery falls under S.194I of the Act,(b) The bills show that the amounts were paid on hourly basis. (c) The assessee's contention that payments should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of S.1941 any charges paid for use of the machinery or plant or equipment are to be taxed under this section and not under S.194C of the Act, the CIT(A) confirmed the tax as well as interest imposed by the Assessing Officer under S.201 and S.201(1A)of the Act, 14. Aggrieved,, assessee preferred second appeal before us on this issue. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities. We find that in respect of rig service drilling at pages 58 to 64 of the paper-book, copy of the invoices have been furnished. As can be seen therefrom, the payments are made for actual use for the services and and the assess.ee has no control over the same. It is further clear therefrom that the possession a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 9. Further before us, Revenue could not controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support. Revenue could not distinguish the facts in the case of Heramac Ltd. (supra) with that of Assessee. In view of these facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus these grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 385/AHD/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 11. Since the facts of the case are identical to that of ITA 380/A/2010 as admitted by both the parties, we therefore for the reasons given while disposing of the appeal in ITA No. 380/AHD/2011 hereinabove and for similar reasons in the present appeal also dismiss the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
