TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO treating the assessee as assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act for Rs. 14,48,42,236/- for non-deduction of tax under section 194C of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee made year end provision for contract charges and audit fees amounting to Rs. 14,48,42,326/- as under: TAN No. Base Area Amount of provision (in Rs) RK100147A Vadinar 5,03,32,830 RK100185A Gauridad 4,04,51,272 AHM100286G Viramgam 2,31,73,365 JDH101132F Sendra 60,72,250 JPR101156B Chaksu 1,04,02,404 BRD100200E Koyali 1,44,10,205 TOTAL 14,48,42,326 The AO was of the view that the assessee should have dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been deducted and deposited in government account before due date of filing of return, the appellant should not be held to be in default u/s.201. I have verified the appellant's contention and the audit report. The appellant's contention is found to be correct from the audit report. The appellant has deducted the tax and paid it to the government account in respect of Rs. 9,49,99,239/-and the remaining amount of provision of Rs. 4,98,43,087/- on which tax has not been deducted has been disallowed and added back to the income u/s.40(a)(ia). The appellant is thus not held to be in default u/s.201 in respect of Rs. 14,48,42,236/-." 4.10 To summarise, the appellant was required to deduct tax on the year end provisions made by it. Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell as facts of the case in holding that since the assessee has disallowed the amount of provisions u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in the return of income filed for A.Y.12-13, it should not be treated as assessee in default for nondeduction of tax at source u/s.194C of the Act on provisions at Rs. 4,98,43,087/-" 9. Brief facts of the case are that the AO treated the assessee as assessee-in-default for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act for an amount of Rs. 14,48,42,326/-. However, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not in default under section 201(1) for Rs. 4,98,43,087/-, as for this amount, the addition was made to the income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10. Being aggrieved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because the amount was disallowed in the assessment made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee cannot be treated as assessee-indefault under section 201 in respect of the same amount. Rather, when the assessee is found to be an assessee-in-default in respect of the TDS amount, then out of many consequences, one of the consequences, is disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We, therefore, do not agree with the order of the CIT(A) in respect of not treating the assessee as assessee-in-default in respect of Rs. 4,98,43,087/-, on the ground that the said amount was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the above ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rofessional activity. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat V. Bharat Pest Control in Civil Application No.261 of 2013 dtd. 28.6.2013 wherein it was held that the pest control services are falling in the definition of work contract. Therefore, it was the submission of the assessee that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the assessee has properly deducted tax u/s.194C of the Act. 20. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and following the above decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal of the assessee. 21. Being aggrieved by this order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before. 22. B....