True character of transaction determines tax deduction: branded sale, job work manufacturing, and routed reimbursements are treated differently.

For tax deduction purposes, the true character of the transaction governs whether payments fall within the works contract regime. A branded battery purchase manufactured to specification, without supply of raw material or control over production by the buyer, remains a contract of sale and is outside tax deduction on that footing. By contrast, where the buyer arranges raw materials, finances working capital, and the arrangement reflects manufacture or assembly for consideration, the payment is treated as job work and attracts deduction. Amounts routed through agents as so-called reimbursements do not escape deduction when they are, in substance, payments for third-party services that would otherwise be liable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether payment for supply of branded batteries manufactured to specification, without supply of raw material by the assessee, was subject to tax deduction at source as a works contract; (ii) Whether the arrangement for manufacture and assembly of cameras amounted to a works contract attracting tax deduction at source; (iii) Whether amounts routed through agents as reimbursement of third-party expenses were outside the tax deduction regime.

Issue (i): Whether payment for supply of branded batteries manufactured to specification, without supply of raw material by the assessee, was subject to tax deduction at source as a works contract.

Analysis: The agreement was for purchase of batteries manufactured by the vendor with the assessee's brand printed on them. The assessee did not supply raw material and had no control over the manufacturing process. Mere specification requirements and brand identification did not, by themselves, convert a sale into a contract for work. The nature of the transaction remained a contract of sale rather than a works contract for the purposes of tax deduction at source.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; section 194C was held not applicable.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrangement for manufacture and assembly of cameras amounted to a works contract attracting tax deduction at source.

Analysis: The camera supply arrangement involved not only assembly and packaging by the manufacturer but also a tripartite arrangement for supply of camera parts and provision of working capital by the assessee. The assessee's financing of raw material procurement and labour costs showed that the manufacturer was acting under a production arrangement with no real financial risk, and the payment structure reflected job-work charges rather than a pure sale price. On these terms, the substance of the transaction was contract manufacturing or job work, bringing the payments within the tax deduction provisions.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee; section 194C was held applicable to the job-work element of the payment.

Issue (iii): Whether amounts routed through agents as reimbursement of third-party expenses were outside the tax deduction regime.

Analysis: The payments made through the agents were not true reimbursements of the agents' own expenses. They represented disbursements to third parties for transportation, crane hiring, handling and similar services that would attract tax deduction if paid directly. Routing such payments through intermediaries did not alter the underlying character of the expenditure or remove the statutory obligation to deduct tax.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee; tax deduction was held to be required.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the camera-manufacturing arrangement and on payments routed through agents, but failed on the batteries issue, resulting in a partial allowance of the Revenue's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For tax deduction purposes, the true character of the transaction governs: a branded purchase without supply of raw material remains a sale, but where the assessee arranges raw material and working capital and the substance of the arrangement is manufacture or assembly for consideration, the payment is for work and tax must be deducted; routing liable payments through an agent does not avoid the deduction obligation.

---