TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of purchases. We are unable to agree with the ld. DR that because there was turnkey project, therefore, each and every part of the transactions comprised therein is liable for TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Various benches of ITAT as referred to above have held that in case of composite contract also, the portion of purchase of machinery is to be excluded while determining the liability u/s 194C of the Act. In view of these facts, material on record , arguments raised before us and the case laws cited, we hold that the assessee is not liable for deduction of tax u/s 194C on the amounts of purchase of windmill machinery. The consequent demand raised in this behalf is deleted. - Decided in fvaour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 49, 50 & 51/JP/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , ₹ 42,977/- ₹ 55,561/- for A.Y. 06-07, 08-09 10-11 respectively u/s 201(1A) on alleged non deduction of tax at source on supply value of plant machinery 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is alleged to have entered into turnkey project with M/s. Suzlon, a windmill supplier group of companies. The Revenue claims it to be a composite contract as against which the assessee claims that the windmills were purchased and entire deal of purchase of windmills consisted of purchasing of windmill by way of sale of goods from one entity of Suzulon Group. The erection and maintenance contract was from different entity of Suzulon Group. The assessee claims that the sale / supply of the part of the windmill was cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the relevant provisions of the law, through artificially dividing such work contract in piecemeal orders. Thus, it is concluded that the erection, installation and commissioning aspects of the Windmill project are integral part of composite contract of such project, thus, the separate work orders placed in this regard are far all practical and technical purposes, forms the part of the single work contact only. Accordingly, I find the AO is justified in holding that the appellant was at fault u/s 201, while not deducting TDS u/s 194C of the Act, towards the payment made far machinery, parts and other materials, as otherwise deducted on the payment made towards service charges related to such composite work contract of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmill is as under 1 2 3 4 5 6 No. A.Y. Name of Supplier Total Cost Cost for supply of P M of windmill Cost for civil/electrical works and for erection/commission of windmill 1. 06-07 Enercon (India) Ltd. 3,85,00,000/- 3,39,00,000/- 46,00,000/- 2. 08-09 Suzlon Group 3,65,48,480/- 3,16,10,100/- 49,38,380/- 3. 10-11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be taken separate i.e. on account of supply of machinery on account of cost of civil work/electrical work erection work. The supplier has raised a separate bill in respect of supply of machines. The assessee has given C Form to the supplier on account of purchase of machinery on remaining amount assessee has deducted TDS i.e. on account of erection work civil work contract. Assessee purchased the machinery the supplier was supposed to erect the same at the factory premises of assessee after completing the civil electrical work. Therefore, provisions of section 194C are not applicable on account of purchase of machinery. (2) Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Chabara in ITA No. 474 525/JP/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that intrinsic nature of the contract will be given go by. It is therefore, pleaded that the assessee has no liability qua the purchase and sale of machinery. Therefore, the demand raised is unjustified and deserves to be deleted. 2.6 The ld. DR on the other hand contends that the ld. CIT(A) has been reasonable in holding that the assessee was not liable for tax demand in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. However, the liability of interest u/s 201(1A) was rightly raised. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is relied on. 2.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It has not been disputed that the assessee acquired the windmill plant by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
