TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2017 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the order of Income Tax Officer (TDS-I), Chandigarh in treating the 'assessee in default' under the provisions of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the ld. Assessing Officer that appellant was required to deduct TDS of Rs. 16,18,240/- under Section 194C on an amount of Rs. 8,09,12,000/- paid as External Development Charges to GMADA. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where the deductor has made payment of EDC to GMADA for the services rendered by it and therefore, assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on such payments as per the provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed copy of notification dated 22.06.2010 that GMADA is a statutory body of Punjab Government and collects the EDC on behalf of the Government and a copy of RTI reply from GMADA stating that the EDC collected by GMADA is accounted under the head liabilities of the Government in the balance sheet by GMADA. These documents were filed as additional evidence and requested that these are relevant in deciding the appeal and be admitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne through the order of the Ld. CIT (A) for the AY 2013-14 in the case of the assessee where in it was held the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS on the EDC payments. The relevant para reads as under : "As per the provisions of section 194C of Income Tax Act the tax is deductible only if the contract of work has been given to the other party. The relation between the parties should be at least that of Principal and Service provider. The scope of work in such contracts of work is determined by the person awarding the contract and it is executed by the other party in accordance with the desires of the party awarding the work. However, in the present case, the relationship between the Appellant and GMADA does not conform to being principa....