Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Rules Supply Contracts as Sale of Goods, Not Attracting TDS u/s 194C of Income-tax Act.</h1> <h3>Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 14 (3) Tds, Hyderabad.</h3> Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 14 (3) Tds, Hyderabad. - ITD 108, 340, TTJ 112, 654, Issues Involved:1. Whether the supply of materials constituted a works contract or a sale contract.2. Applicability of Board Circular No. 681, dated 8-3-1994.3. Whether the independent supply order should attract TDS under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Whether the supply of materials constituted a works contract or a sale contract.The assessee, a Central Government undertaking involved in power transmission and distribution, had awarded contracts for supply and erection of transmission lines and substations. The contracts included Pure Supply Contracts, Pure Erection Contracts, and Supply-cum-Erection Contracts. The Assessing Officer classified these as works contracts, arguing that the supply involved design and manufacture, making it a works contract rather than a sale. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this view, stating that the transactions were not direct purchases from the market but were for future execution of specified contracts, thus constituting works contracts.Issue 2: Applicability of Board Circular No. 681, dated 8-3-1994.The assessee contended that the Board Circular No. 681, which clarifies that section 194C does not cover contracts for the sale of goods, was not applied correctly. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Circular No. 715, which deals with contracts involving work, such as advertising, broadcasting, and catering, and argued that the contracts in question were composite and indivisible, thus falling under section 194C.Issue 3: Whether the independent supply order should attract TDS under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The assessee argued that the supply contracts were distinct and did not attract TDS under section 194C, as they were contracts for the sale of goods. The Tribunal examined the nature of the contracts, the intention of the parties, and the transfer of property in goods. It was found that the contracts involved the supply of goods as chattels, with the title passing on delivery ex-works, thus constituting sale contracts. The Tribunal concluded that section 194C was not applicable to these supply contracts, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of Contracts:The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the contracts, distinguishing between supply and erection contracts. It noted that the supply contracts involved the delivery of goods as chattels, with the title passing on ex-works dispatch, indicating a sale contract. The erection contracts, where the assessee had deducted TDS, were treated separately and did not affect the classification of supply contracts.2. Application of Circulars:The Tribunal considered the applicability of Board Circulars No. 681 and No. 715. It emphasized that Circular No. 681 clarified that contracts for the sale of goods are outside the purview of section 194C. The Tribunal found that the contracts in question were for the supply of goods, with the property passing as chattels, and thus Circular No. 681 was applicable.3. Judicial Precedents:The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Hindustan Shipyard and Kane Elevators, which provided guidelines for distinguishing between contracts for sale and works contracts. It concluded that the contracts in question were sale contracts, as the property in goods passed as chattels, and the work involved was incidental to the supply.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the supply contracts were contracts for the sale of goods and did not attract TDS under section 194C. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the intention of the parties, the transfer of property in goods, and the nature of the contracts in determining the applicability of section 194C.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found