2017 (2) TMI 1119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law as well as on facts by deleting addition of Rs. 80,14,600/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia). " 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law as well as on facts in holding that the payments of machinery hiring charges were not covered under the definition of rent u/s 1941 of the Act, when the Explanation to that section clearly says that any payment, by whatever name called, for the use of any machinery, whether or not owned by the payee, falls under the definition of rent. 3. After holding that the impugned payments of machinery hiring charges could possibly be considered u/s 194C of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) was not jus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vinod Transport (2011) has held that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made if the expenses are outstanding and payable at the year end and cannot be invoked where expenses were paid before the year end despite TDS either not deducted or remains payable. Further, relying on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Teja Construction (2010) 5 taxmann.com 61 (Hyd), it was submitted that the provisions of section 194C would not apply in relation to payments made for hiring of renting of equipment's, etc., as per the Circular No.681 dated 8.3.1994. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the provisions of section 194-I of the I.T.Act, 1961, tax is deductible at sour....