2014 (2) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 194 C of the Income Tax Act,1961 were not applicable in respect of the payments made by the assessee to Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board for construction/ repairs/ maintenance of the market yards and missing link roads. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source u/s 194J on payment made to local fund audit department of State Government whereas the payment were made to advocate/charted accountants for professional services. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has er....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing of official stationery and tax was not deducted on the same, therefore, the provisions of section 194C were clearly violated. The A.O. issued show cause notice intimating that it was proposed to treat payments to RSAMB, made towards the works listed, as contractual payment attracting provisions of section 194C. The A.O. did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and demand u/s 201 & 201(1A) of the Act for assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 48,57,072/- was created. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Act, 1961, two entities were created viz. the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti[the assessee] and Rajasthan State Agricultural....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was stated that had the contractors been sub-contractors the RSAMB would have deduced tax at source @ 1% only. It was further stated that RSAMB by supervising the work and not carrying out the work itself functioned as a consultant only. Reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs ITO reported at 81 ITD 173. It was argued that on the one hand the A.O. tried to establish that the relation between the assessee and RSAMB was that of principal and agent and on the other hand that of a contractor and a sub-contractor, which was a contradictory stand. It was further argued that there being no contract between the assessee and the RSAMB, the payments made by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the A.O. at the time of assessment proceedings. It was further stated that Circular No. 275/202/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997 issued by the CBDT declares as under :- "No demand visualized u/s 201(1) should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes due have been paid by the deductee, however, this will not alter the liability to charge interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee or the liability for penalty u/s 271C of the Act." It was contended that from the Circular it was clear that when the payee had deposited the due tax, the payer has no further liability for deduction of tax at source. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: a. ITO Vs. Alfred ....