Payments under turnkey operation-and-maintenance treated as work contract; taxable under s.194C not s.194J; s.201(1) demand quashed

ITAT held that payments under a turnkey operation-and-maintenance agreement constituted a work contract and were taxable under s.194C (2% TDS), not fees for professional/technical services under s.194J. The tribunal found the AO's classification incorrect and quashed the s.201(1) demand of Rs.50,90,757 for short-deduction of tax. It further cancelled the order because the payee had declared substantial losses and had no tax liability, making the short-deduction demand unjustified. The appeal was allowed and the demands set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of payments made by the appellant-company to Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) - whether for professional services u/s 194J or contractual payments u/s 194C.
2. Liability of the appellant u/s 201(1) for short-deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs. 50,90,757.
3. Justification for cancellation of the order determining the payment of Rs. 50,90,757 u/s 201(1).

Summary:

Issue 1: Nature of Payments (u/s 194C vs. u/s 194J)
The appellant-company, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (GSECL), entered into an "Operation and Maintenance Agreement" with GEB on 14th Oct., 1998. The appellant argued that the payments made to GEB were for a turnkey project involving the entire operation and maintenance of the power plant, which should be treated as contractual payments u/s 194C, not as fees for professional or technical services u/s 194J. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the agreement required GEB to carry out all activities related to the operation and maintenance of the power plant, thus qualifying as a work contract under s. 194C.

Issue 2: Liability u/s 201(1)
The AO had treated the payments as fees for technical services u/s 194J, leading to a demand of Rs. 50,90,757 for short-deduction of tax. The Tribunal found that the AO's classification was incorrect, as the services provided by GEB were part of a comprehensive work contract, not merely technical services. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment made to GEB was for carrying out the entire operation and maintenance of the power plant, which falls under the exclusionary clause of "consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project" in Expln. 2 to s. 9(1)(vii).

Issue 3: Justification for Cancellation of Order
The Tribunal noted that GEB had declared a substantial loss for the relevant assessment year, and no tax was payable by GEB. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rishikesh Apartments Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the Tribunal held that since GEB had no tax liability, the demand for short-deduction of tax was unjustified. The Tribunal also pointed out that the appellant could have requested a certificate for non-deduction of tax at source, given GEB's significant losses.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO, and cancelling the demand of Rs. 50,90,757 u/s 201(1). The Tribunal concluded that the payments made to GEB were rightly subjected to tax deduction at source at the rate of 2% u/s 194C.

---