2017 (10) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... APPELLANT MR B S SOPARKAR, CAVEATOR FOR THE RESPONDENT ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These tax appeals arise out of common judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.07.2016. Revenue has filed these tax appeals raising the following question for our consideration: Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and facts in following its or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was not a contractor. The Tribunal also held that IRCTC was a government body. The Tribunal also applied the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201 which was introduced in the statute subsequently. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what emerges from the record is that the assessee was granted a contract by IRCTC for providing catering service for which the assessee would mak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....educt tax at specified rate. The Tribunal was thus right in observing that section 194C of the Act would apply in case of a payment being made by a contractor to a contractee and not vice-versa. In the present case, the payment of licence fee was made by the contractee to the contractor and therefore section 194C of the Act would not apply. 5. We are broadly in agreement with the view of the Tr....