https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205283 The court determined that payments for hiring vehicles for employee transportation fell under Section 194-C, not Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act. The contract was deemed to be for transportation services, akin to a "wet lease," where the service provider retained control over the vehicles. The assessee was found to have correctly deducted tax under Section 194-C and was not considered an "assessee in default" under Section 201(1). The revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision based on thorough analysis and supporting circulars and precedents. en-us Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205283 The court determined that payments for hiring vehicles for employee transportation fell under Section 194-C, not Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act. The contract was deemed to be for transportation services, akin to a "wet lease," where the service provider retained control over the vehicles. The assessee was found to have correctly deducted tax under Section 194-C and was not considered an "assessee in default" under Section 201(1). The revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision based on thorough analysis and supporting circulars and precedents. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205283