2017 (3) TMI 963 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on TDS issue under Section 194C vs. 194J

The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee for all the years in question, stating that the TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194C. The tribunal ... TDS u/s 194J OR 194C - nature of payment - Held that:- In the case of payment to Mangak Anand Healthcare, Mumbai, work order was issued by the assessee dated 09-01-2004 wherein contract was awarded to the said person by the assessee for running x-ray and sonography services in all four MCH centre for a period of 5 years from the date of signing of the agreement. Thus, the said party was to provide aforesaid services of xray and sonography, etc. at the hospitals run by the assessee. The rates were fixed by the assessee in the work order on per patient basis. It is noted from perusal of para 12 of the said contract that the said party would employ skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled personnel in sufficient numbers to carry out its services at the required rate of progress and of quality to ensure workmanship of the degree specified in the contract for timely fulfilling the obligations of the said party under the contract. Various other clauses of this agreement clearly suggest that there was obligation of carrying out work by the said person in return of a pre-decided rates payable by the assesssee. The overall terms and conditions of the contract and other facts brought before us indicate that it would fall within the nature of ‘work’ as stipulated in section 194C. Similarly, with respect to the other parties also, viz. Gharpure Engineering & Construction (P) Ltd and Ramky Infrastructure Ltd also, perusal of their bills, work orders and agreements clearly indicate that assessee assigned them contract work on turnkey basis for carrying out variety of jobs of civil construction, etc. None of the jobs carried out by these persons would fall in the scope of section 194J. The activities performed by these parties would clearly fall within the definition of ‘work’ as stated in section 194C. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Whether the payments made by the assessee for various services should be subject to TDS under Section 194C or Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Payments to Mangal Anand Healthcare Ltd:The primary issue was whether the payments made to Mangal Anand Healthcare Ltd for providing sonograph and X-ray machines, operating manpower, materials/consumables, and comprehensive annual maintenance should be taxed under Section 194C or Section 194J. The assessee argued that these were composite activities involving both skilled and unskilled labor and thus should be classified under Section 194C, which pertains to contractual work. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had earlier ruled that these were technical services and should fall under Section 194J. However, the tribunal examined the work orders and agreements, noting that the services provided were comprehensive and involved various levels of personnel, not just technical experts. The tribunal concluded that the nature of the contract was more aligned with 'work' as defined under Section 194C and not technical services under Section 194J.2. Payments to Gharpure Engineering & Construction (P) Ltd and Ramky Infrastructure Ltd:Similar to the first issue, the payments made to Gharpure Engineering & Construction (P) Ltd and Ramky Infrastructure Ltd for civil construction, designing, erecting, and commissioning of sewerage treatment plants were under scrutiny. The assessee had deducted TDS under Section 194C, while the lower authorities contended that these should be under Section 194J. The tribunal reviewed the contracts and bills, noting that these were turnkey projects involving a variety of jobs, including civil construction, which did not fall under the purview of technical services. The tribunal referenced the judgment in PCIT vs Senior Manager, Finance, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, which held that such contracts fall within the definition of 'work' under Section 194C and not Section 194J.Judgment:The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee for all the years in question (AY 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10), stating that the TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194C. The tribunal emphasized that the activities performed by the parties were contractual in nature and did not constitute technical services requiring TDS under Section 194J. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the orders of the lower authorities were overturned.Conclusion:The tribunal concluded that the nature of the contracts and services provided by the parties fell within the scope of 'work' as defined under Section 194C, not 'technical services' under Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee had correctly deducted TDS under Section 194C, and the demands raised under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not justified. All appeals by the assessee were allowed.