{"id":3107,"date":"2011-05-06T13:17:20","date_gmt":"2011-05-06T07:47:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3107"},"modified":"2011-05-06T13:17:20","modified_gmt":"2011-05-06T07:47:20","slug":"ahmedabad-urban-development-authority-vs-acit-itat-ahmedabad-even-fixed-charges-for-hire-of-vehicles-not-rent-for-s-194-i-tds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ahmedabad-urban-development-authority-vs-acit-itat-ahmedabad-even-fixed-charges-for-hire-of-vehicles-not-rent-for-s-194-i-tds\/","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=420\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=420&varname2=3_judgements_194C_194_I_car_hire.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (3_judgements_194C_194_I_car_hire.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nEven fixed charges for hire of vehicles not &#8220;rent&#8221; for s. 194-I TDS<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee hired cars on <em>fixed rent payment<\/em> and deducted <em>TDS u\/s 194C<\/em> at 2% on the basis that it was a &#8220;works contract&#8221;. The AO &#038; CIT (A) held that since cars were &#8220;plant&#8221;, tax ought to have been deducted <em>u\/s 194-I<\/em> 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: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>S. 194C defines \u201cwork\u201d to include &#8220;carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways&#8221; while s. 194-I defines &#8220;rent&#8221; to mean payment for use of &#8220;plant&#8221; (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). <strong>As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for &#8220;<em>carriage of passengers<\/em>&#8221; for which the assessee paid a fixed amount<\/strong>. Therefore, <strong>the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not &#8220;rent&#8221; for s. 194-I<\/strong>. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nSee Also: <strong>CIT vs. Swayam Shipping<\/strong> (Guj High Court) (<em>included in file<\/em>), <strong>Accenture Services<\/strong> (ITAT Mumbai) (<em>included in the file<\/em>) &#038; <strong>Tata AIG General Insurance<\/strong> 43 SOT 215 (Mum) on the same point\n <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 194C defines \u201cwork\u201d to include &#8220;carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways&#8221; while s. 194-I defines &#8220;rent&#8221; to mean payment for use of &#8220;plant&#8221; (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). <strong>As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for &#8220;<em>carriage of passengers<\/em>&#8221; for which the assessee paid a fixed amount<\/strong>. Therefore, <strong>the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not &#8220;rent&#8221; for s. 194-I<\/strong><\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ahmedabad-urban-development-authority-vs-acit-itat-ahmedabad-even-fixed-charges-for-hire-of-vehicles-not-rent-for-s-194-i-tds\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3107","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}