https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189352 The Tribunal held that the contracts for supply, erection, and civil works were distinct, not composite. Citing a Karnataka HC decision, it ruled that separate contracts for these works are distinct, and TDS is not required on the supply contract. The appellant was not liable to deduct TDS on the supply contract under section 194C. The appeals by the assessee were allowed, with the AO directed to verify the advance tax payment by BGR and BHEL for appropriate relief, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:30:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189352 The Tribunal held that the contracts for supply, erection, and civil works were distinct, not composite. Citing a Karnataka HC decision, it ruled that separate contracts for these works are distinct, and TDS is not required on the supply contract. The appellant was not liable to deduct TDS on the supply contract under section 194C. The appeals by the assessee were allowed, with the AO directed to verify the advance tax payment by BGR and BHEL for appropriate relief, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189352