TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form of transmission/wheeling/SLDC charges are not liable to be deducted at source u/s. 194J of the Act? Alternatively, a ground has been raised that the provisions of section 194C will be applicable. 2. During hearing of these appeals, we have heard Shri T.C. Gupta, ld. DR and Shri Bhupendra Mantri, ld. Counsel for the assessee. The crux of argument on behalf of the Revenue is identical to the ground raised by further submitting that if the provision of section 194 J is not applicable then the provision of section 194C is applicable to the facts of the present appeal. In nutshell the assessment order was defended. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order by submitting that the issue is covered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 2004-05 46,06,200 - - 46,06,200 2. 2005-06 43,52,652 - 1,08,242 44,60,894 2006-07 37,93,504 1,71,600 79,427 40,44,531 1,27,52,356 1,71,600 1,87,669 1,31,11,625 From the agreement dated 07.06.2003 entered into with RRVPNL and the assessee it was observed that the payments are made for taking services of the assessee for transmission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n deleted by holding that no tax is deductible u/s. 194J or 194C of the Act on payment of transmission charges, SLDC and wheeling charges. It is seen that the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 30.04.2009 has duly considered the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Companies Act, 1956, various agreements with the assessee under Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act, 1999, Scheme notified by the Government of Rajasthan on 19.07.2000. Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which mandates the STU to undertake various functions, section 40 which prescribes the various duties regarding transmission license, function of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, technical standard of operation and maintenance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, on this issue also we affirm the stand taken by the learned first appellate authority. The Tribunal while disposing of identical issue has already considered various judicial pronouncements like Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC), CBDT Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.01.1997, Singapore Airlines Ltd. Vs. ITO 7 SOT 84 (Chennai), Hon ble Apex Court in CIT vs. ELI Lilly Co. (India)(P) Ltd. (2009) 21 DTR (SC) 74 etc. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, no interest u/s. 201(1A) is leviable. Finally, these appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of hearing on 28.09.2010. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
