Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 6, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (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 Posts:

  • New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)(S. 194-I) (1) Amounts paid as part of the lease premium in terms of the time schedule (s) to the Lease Deeds executed between the petitioners and GNOIDA, or biannual or annual payments for a limited/specific period towards acquisition of lease hold rights are not subject to TDS, being capital payments; (2)…
  • Ashish Tandon vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) "Coining of" the concept was in the course of the employment of the assessee, and, therefore, the plea that it belonged to the assessee, in his individual capacity, is too naïve to meet any judicial approval. In any case, there is no material on record to demonstrate that this coining…
  • Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Despite severe structures and directions of the Tribunal against the departmental officials passed vide order dated 20.12.2017, which was not only very much in the knowledge of not only of the concerned officials who had done the coercive act of recovery from the assessee but also to the senior officials…
  • CIT vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court) First of all this petition has been filed after a delay of 596 days. There is an inadequate and unconvincing explanation given for the delay in filing the petition. Secondly, it is mentioned in the proforma for first listing that a similar matter being C.A. No. 7096/2012 is pending in…
  • New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. CCIT (Supreme Court) What she argued was that looking to the nature of the functions enjoined upon the appellant committee, it must be deemed to be a municipal committee within the meaning of that expression in clause (iii) of the Explanation. We regret our inability to accept that submission. We say so for…
  • Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) A development agreement was executed which enabled the assessee to utilize the land for construction and for sharing of profits. This right/advantage accrued to the assessee was sought to be taken away from the assessee by way of sale of land. The prospective purchaser as well as the defaulting party…

Related Judgements

  1. Om Metals Infraprojects vs. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) 

    Where the assessee entered into an agreement with the Vidharbha Irrigation department for supply, erection and installation of dam gates and the question arose whether it was “developing an infrastructural facility” so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) or it was a mere contractor, HELD:
     
    (i) Though the…
  2. DCIT vs. Citizen Hotels (ITAT Mumbai) 

    As the assessee had earned tax-free dividend income, s.14A was applicable. The question of determination of the disallowable amount has to be worked out by the AO as per Rule 8D as held the Special Bench judgement in ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 119 TTJ (Mum)…
  3. Shree Capital Services vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkota Special Bench) 

    A ‘derivative’ is a security representing the value of the underlying stocks and shares and must be given the same treatment as that given to the stocks and shares. Also, s. 43 (5) uses the term “commodity” in a wide sense and covers ‘derivatives’. Further, the fact that s….
  4. BBC Worldwide vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    In Circular No. 23 of 1969 dated 23rd July 1969 the CBDT has held that if a non resident’s sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising out of the transaction will be limited to…
  5. Hindalco Industries vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The department has the option u/s 166 to assess either the non-resident principal or the representative assessee. Once the choice is made and the income is brought to tax in the hands of the principal, the same income cannot be again assessed u/s 163 in the hands of a…
One comment on “Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)”
  1. CA.pushkar NATH says:
    May 6, 2011 at 11:32 pm

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

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*