eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 357 of 2013
Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)
Respondent :- M/S Delhi Public School, Noida
Counsel for Appellant :- Shambhu Chopra
Counsel for Respondent :- R.S. Agarwal
AND
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 358 of 2013
Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)
Respondent :- M/S Delhi Public School, Noida
Counsel for Appellant :- Shambhu Chopra
Counsel for Respondent :- R.S. Agarwal
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
These income tax appeals by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") arise from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24 May 2013 for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10.� The appeals have been admitted on the following questions of law:
"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the ITAT legally correct in holding that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS at 2% U/s 194-C and not U/s 194-I of the I.T. Act, 1961, without considering the Explanation to S.194-I.������
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the ITAT legally correct in its view that the assessee's case is covered by S. 194-C and not by S. 194-I without keeping in mind the Explanation to S. 194-I to the Act which defines 'rent' to mean any payment under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other arrangement for the use of interalia (d) machinery, (e) plant, or (f) equipment.�����
3. Whether the ITAT has rightly relied upon the cases of NTPC Ltd and Accenture Services (P) Ltd. without considering the fact that this issue may have been agitated before the Hon'ble High Court in those cases and in any view of the matter, the deduction of tax under Section 194-C or under Section 194-I is a matter of interpretation and has to be examined keeping in mind the meaning and definition of "work" and "service" in the context of TDS from payments to transport contractors for hiring of buses."
- 2 -�
Both these appeals are part of a batch of appeals which are on board today in which similar issues in relation to the applicability of Section 194-C or, as the case may be, Section 194-I of the Act have been in issue.
The agreements in the present appeals between the assessee and the contractor for the transportation of students are, it is common ground, similar to those involved in the main appeal (Income Tax Appeal No. 314 of 2011, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Apeejay School Apeejay School Campus) which has been disposed of by a judgment delivered today. In the said judgment, this Court has held that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 194-C and not Section 194I of the Act were attracted.
Following the decision which has been delivered today in the companion appeal, i.e. Income Tax Appeal No. 314 of 2011, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Apeejay School Apeejay School Campus, the questions of law are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.8.2014
AHA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)
(Dilip Gupta, J.) � � � �
Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer
|
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 357 of 2013
Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)
Respondent :- M/S Delhi Public School, Noida
Counsel for Appellant :- Shambhu Chopra
Counsel for Respondent :- R.S. Agarwal
AND
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 358 of 2013
Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)
Respondent :- M/S Delhi Public School, Noida
Counsel for Appellant :- Shambhu Chopra
Counsel for Respondent :- R.S. Agarwal
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
These income tax appeals by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") arise from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24 May 2013 for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10.� The appeals have been admitted on the following questions of law:
"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the ITAT legally correct in holding that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS at 2% U/s 194-C and not U/s 194-I of the I.T. Act, 1961, without considering the Explanation to S.194-I.������
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the ITAT legally correct in its view that the assessee's case is covered by S. 194-C and not by S. 194-I without keeping in mind the Explanation to S. 194-I to the Act which defines 'rent' to mean any payment under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other arrangement for the use of interalia (d) machinery, (e) plant, or (f) equipment.�����
3. Whether the ITAT has rightly relied upon the cases of NTPC Ltd and Accenture Services (P) Ltd. without considering the fact that this issue may have been agitated before the Hon'ble High Court in those cases and in any view of the matter, the deduction of tax under Section 194-C or under Section 194-I is a matter of interpretation and has to be examined keeping in mind the meaning and definition of "work" and "service" in the context of TDS from payments to transport contractors for hiring of buses."
- 2 -�
Both these appeals are part of a batch of appeals which are on board today in which similar issues in relation to the applicability of Section 194-C or, as the case may be, Section 194-I of the Act have been in issue.
The agreements in the present appeals between the assessee and the contractor for the transportation of students are, it is common ground, similar to those involved in the main appeal (Income Tax Appeal No. 314 of 2011, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Apeejay School Apeejay School Campus) which has been disposed of by a judgment delivered today. In the said judgment, this Court has held that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 194-C and not Section 194I of the Act were attracted.
Following the decision which has been delivered today in the companion appeal, i.e. Income Tax Appeal No. 314 of 2011, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Apeejay School Apeejay School Campus, the questions of law are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.8.2014
AHA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)
(Dilip Gupta, J.) � � � �
Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer
Regards
Prarthana Jalan
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment