Please click on the categories to the right to find what you are looking for. Click on this icon to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from Foxit 1.8 MB or from Adobe 20MB.

(143.8 KiB, 2,240 DLs)

Download: 3_judgements_194C_194_I_car_hire.pdf


Even fixed charges for hire of vehicles not “rent” for s. 194-I TDS

 

The assessee hired cars on fixed rent payment and deducted TDS u/s 194C at 2% on the basis that it was a “works contract”. The AO & CIT (A) held that since cars were “plant”, tax ought to have been deducted u/s 194-I at 10%. The assessee was held liable for the short-fall of 8% in TDS u/s 201. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

 

S. 194C defines “work” to include “carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways” while s. 194-I defines “rent” to mean payment for use of “plant” (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for “carriage of passengers” for which the assessee paid a fixed amount. Therefore, the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not “rent” for s. 194-I.

 

See Also: CIT vs. Swayam Shipping (Guj High Court) (included in file), Accenture Services (ITAT Mumbai) (included in the file) & Tata AIG General Insurance 43 SOT 215 (Mum) on the same point

Related Judgements

  1. Bapushaeb Nanasaheb Dhumal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Failure to deduct or deposit tax as per s. 194C or Chapter-XVII makes the assessee liable to the consequences provided under the said Chapter-XVII. However, s. 40(a)(ia) is in addition to Chapter XVII. S. 40(a)(ia)(A) provides that if tax is deducted during the last month of the previous…

  2. Dr. Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) 

    The warrant of authorization u/s 132 was issued in the name of “K. M. Shah Charitable Trust, Mansukhbhai K. Shah”. This cannot be regarded as a warrant of authorization issued in the name of assessee in his individual capacity. The search cannot be regarded as conducted against the assessee…

  3. Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad – Special Bench) 

    Article 26(2) of the India-USA DTAA provides that the taxation of a PE of an enterprise of a Contracting State in the other Contracting State shall not be less favorably levied in that other State than the tax levied on enterprises of that other Contracting State carrying on the…

One Response to “Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)”

  1. CA.pushkar NATH Says:

    but, now the rate for tds on Rent for plant and machinery for hire @ 2 %.

Leave a Reply


× 9 = forty five