Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
The High Court held that the capital grant subsidy or viability gap funding provided by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to its Concessionaires for infrastructure projects does not constitute payment for 'work' u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence, is not subject to tax deduction at source. The key points are: The Concessionaire's primary obligation is to raise funds and implement the project, while NHAI extends financial aid through viability gap funding. Section 194C requires tax deduction on sums paid to a contractor for carrying out 'work', which implies a physical or tangible activity involving labor. The capital grant subsidy is not payment for work per se but financial support from NHAI for creating a public utility asset. The Concessionaire owns and exploits the asset during the concession period to recoup investment. The viability gap funding is not credited to the Concessionaire's account but directly to the Escrow Account, hence not attracting Section 194C(2). The High Court correctly concluded that the viability gap funding cannot be construed as payment for work undertaken by the contractor u/s 194C.
The High Court held that the capital grant subsidy or viability gap funding provided by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to its Concessionaires for infrastructure projects does not constitute payment for 'work' u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence, is not subject to tax deduction at source. The key points are: The Concessionaire's primary obligation is to raise funds and implement the project, while NHAI extends financial aid through viability gap funding. Section 194C requires tax deduction on sums paid to a contractor for carrying out 'work', which implies a physical or tangible activity involving labor. The capital grant subsidy is not payment for work per se but financial support from NHAI for creating a public utility asset. The Concessionaire owns and exploits the asset during the concession period to recoup investment. The viability gap funding is not credited to the Concessionaire's account but directly to the Escrow Account, hence not attracting Section 194C(2). The High Court correctly concluded that the viability gap funding cannot be construed as payment for work undertaken by the contractor u/s 194C.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
