TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands order on Section 40(a)(ia) applicability for assessment of payments to Wipro G.E. Medical Systems.</h1> <h3>Dy. CIT. -VI, Lucknow Versus M/s Ama Medical & Diagnostic Centre, Lucknow</h3> Dy. CIT. -VI, Lucknow Versus M/s Ama Medical & Diagnostic Centre, Lucknow - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C.2. Reliance on the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports.3. Interpretation of the term 'payable' under Section 40(a)(ia).4. Applicability of Section 194C to the payments made to Wipro G.E. Medical Systems.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition Made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS under Section 194C:The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), Lucknow deleted the addition of Rs.33,14,317/- made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) on the grounds that the assessee failed to deduct TDS under Section 194C on payments made to M/s Wipro G. E. Medical Systems. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, which stated that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable if the payment was made during the year and no amount remained payable at the end of the financial year.2. Reliance on the Judgment of the Special Bench in the Case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports:The CIT(A) relied heavily on the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, which was followed by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Underwater Services Co. vs. Income Tax Officer. However, the Tribunal noted that the order of the Special Bench was stayed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Tribunal also referenced judgments from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which overruled the view taken by the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping & Transports.3. Interpretation of the Term 'Payable' under Section 40(a)(ia):The Tribunal discussed various judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which held that Section 40(a)(ia) covers amounts payable at any time during the year, not just those payable at the end of the financial year. The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'payable' includes amounts paid during the year, aligning with the Departmental View as clarified by the CBDT in its circular dated 16/12/2013.4. Applicability of Section 194C to Payments Made to Wipro G.E. Medical Systems:The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide any findings on the applicability of Section 194C to the payments made to Wipro G.E. Medical Systems. The matter was previously set aside by the Tribunal to determine whether the contract between the assessee and Wipro G. E. Medical Systems was a work contract or a service contract. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate this issue on merit.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for adjudication on merit. It held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) cover amounts payable at any time during the year, not just those payable at the end of the year. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for further consideration on the applicability of Section 194C and the nature of the payments involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
