Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2012 (6) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olation of Section 40(a)(ia). The factual matrix of this ground are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of two concerns, namely, 'M/s Ratan Transport' and 'M/s Ratan Forklift Hiring Services', which are engaged in the business of forklift hiring. The hire charges so received from the various parties from hiring of forklift vehicles were either through the forklift vehicles owned by him or taken on hire from outside parties for which he had to make payment to such other parties. 3. The Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had declared turn over of Rs. 82.73 lacs in M/s Ratan Forklift and Rs. 15.82 lacs in M/s Ratan Transport from hiring business. As against....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 194C(2) are not applicable. It was further submitted that individuals are not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194C(2) in respect of payment to sub-contractors under sub-section (2) of Section 194C, which has only come in the statute w.e.f. 1- 6-2007. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions :- (i) Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 286. (ii) Mythri Transport Corporation v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 124 ITD 40 (Visakha.) (iii) Order of CIT(A) 24 in the case of Janardhan V. Sawant, A.Y. 2007-2008 (Appeal No. CIT(A) 24/ACIT, 13 (2)/337/09-10 dtd.11.06.2010). 5. Learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's contention simply by affirming the finding of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d has been claimed as expenditure. In such a case, the assessee is solely responsible for executing the contract with the persons to whom he has given forklift vehicles on hire and it is only for fulfilment of this contract that he has also engaged the forklift vehicles from the outside parties. In case of hiring from outside parties the responsibility and the risk involved for performing the contract work lies with the assessee only and no such risk and responsibility seems to have been transferred to outside parties vis-à-vis his principals. The provisions of Section 194C applies to any payment made to a contractor for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and the specified persons. The contract al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hort deduction of tax under Section 201 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and levied interest under section 201(IA) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. On further appeal: Held: dismissing the appeal, that the Assessing Officer had held the assessee liable to deduction of tax only on the assumption that the assessee had agreement with the parties through whom trucks were arranged for transportation of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded a finding that there was neither an oral nor written agreement between the assessee and the transporters for carriage of goods nor had it been proved that any sum of money regarding freig....