In fact, it is clarified that the definition of the word work will not include manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from a person other than such customer. However, this amendment came into force only with effect from 1st October, 2009, which will not apply to the period in question in the present case(s).

The assessees are availing loans from SNBFCL and passing over the loans to various Self Help Groups (SHGs) working under them. In fact, the loan amounts are not utilized by the assessee trusts. They are utilized by the SHGs working under the trusts. The ultimate payer of the interest is not the assessee trusts, but [...]

The agreement between the assessee and GAIL is a contract for sale of gas and not a works contract. VAT which is charged by the seller is on the composite price and not only on the price of the gas. The assessee is required to disclose the price of the gas and transmission charges separately [...]

In the instant case, the assessee was not under an obligation to carry out the work as it was not under the control of the lender and the possession of the machinery temporarily was passed to the assessee after entering into agreement with the lender. Therefore, in the present case, taking of the machinery and [...]

In Cargo Linkers (supra), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was not the ‘person responsible’ for making payment in terms of section 194C of the said Act. In that case, the Tribunal had also noted and found as a matter of fact that the assessee was nothing but an intermediary [...]

CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had the benefit of examining the entire documentary evidence which consisted of the various lease deeds and the c & f agents agreements. The conclusions drawn by these authorities on the basis of such scrutiny are concurrent. Even otherwise, if the revenue was of the opinion that any consideration paid to the c & f agent comprised of some elements such as rent, such a conclusion ought to have been supported by facts.

The Tribunal, upon detailed examination of the nature of relationship between the assessee and the transporter, came to the conclusion that this is not a case of sub-contract. The Tribunal noted that none of the responsibilities of the contractor vis-a-vis the execution of the work were fastened on the transporters.

In the case before the Kerala High Court, the question arose for consideration was whether a transport contract for mere carriage of goods without loading and unloading facility would amount to carrying out any work within the meaning of section 194C(1) of the Act.

GAIL and HPCL deputed their personnel who worked under the control and management of JVC. The employees were carrying out the work of the Assessee as its employees not carrying out the work on behalf of GAIL or HPCL. Salary, cost of these employees are a charge on the profits of the Assessee. Payment by way of salary would not constitute Fees for technical services. Nor can the transaction be viewed as a works contract performed by GAIL and HPCL.

As rightly submitted by the learned DR, one of the reasons given by the AO for making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was that the payment of freight charges was made by the assessee on account of air fare and not shipping charges and even the said air fare was not directly paid to the airlines but the same was paid to the different parties who acted as freight booking agents.