Tribunal held that; there was no payment of any sum by the assessee to the miller. It was further held that even if one has to say that there was a constructive payment, it was difficult to quantify the same and to say that assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source at such construed payment. On facts the present agreement, which is just exchange of goods for goods and does not involve any cash outflow. Although services were taken, it is difficult to say that the residuals and the losses left by the assessee in favour of AIL are purely consideration for the job that is done.The market fluctuations in the price structure of the raw material and the end product cannot be just ignored in the whole transaction nor the process loss. The process loss could be either more or less than the percentage agreed to between the parties. But still the parties settle the transactions at an agreed proportion.In other words, the residual that is left by the assessee, apart from covering the labour cost of processing, also includes the protection from market fluctuations as also protection from adverse process loss. To conclude, the entire residual is only for the purpose of job work is not fair and correct having regard to the totality of the transaction entered into by the parties. Accordingly the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source. (ITA Nos. 1309 & 1310, 1312-1214,1424 & 1425c-16, 78-C-18, 1241 &1242/Chd/2016, 669/Chd/2016, 320 to 325/Chd./2018 & 685-686-C-2016, dt. 07.09.2018)(AY. 2012-13, 2013-14)