Times VPL Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 421 ITR 170/312 CTR 284/185 DTR 139/ 275 Taxman 176 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Contract for sale of goods-Agreement for bulk sale of advertising space — Provision is not applicable.

Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that the S.194C of the  Act, would apply to a contract for work and not to a contract of sale. There is a distinction between the two concepts namely “contract for sale of goods” and “works contract”. In determining the question whether a contract constitutes one for work or is a contract of sale, the intention and object of parties has to be borne in mind, which is to be examined in the light of terms of the contract. The main object in a contract of sale is the transfer of property and delivery of possession of the property, whereas the main object in a contract for work is not the transfer of the property, but it is one for work and labour. On facts the assessee had entered into an agreement for bulk sale of advertising space with its holding company on a principal to principal basis by transfer of rights therein. The assessee under the agreement made purchase of advertisement space and exercised control over such space with the right to either sell it to another or retain it for itself. Thus, it was a transfer of advertising space to the assessee who in turn sold it to others. Therefore, the transaction could not be termed a contract for work, and S.194C was not applicable. (AY. 2007-08)