Case Law Details
DCIT Vs M/s. Ahmedabad Vadodara Express Way Co. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)
It is seen that the assessees have given only permission to the collecting entities to collect the toll fees and maintain the toll plazas by employing a specified category of persons and supervise them and deposit the toll collection in the signatory account of the NHAI has agreed to pay service and the NHAI agreed to pay the men-power employed by the collecting entities the salary as fixed by the collecting entity. On perusal of all these, it is clear that the assessees have not granted any right or interest in the toll plaza to the collecting entities. Therefore, the said agreement will not comprehend into the scope of provisions contained in Section 206C(1C) of the I.T.Act,196l as was found by the learned CIT(A) rightly. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly found that the assessees are not obliged to collect TCS from the collecting agency to whom it has entrusted the activities of collecting toll fees as prescribed by the assessees. As was observed by the learned CIT(A) it is not a contract. It is only outsourcing job for collection of user fees.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
These six appeals of the Revenue are against common order of the ld.CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad dated 25.3.2015 passed for the Asstt. Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. Revenue has filed separate appeals for each assessment year. Grounds raised in all these appeals are identical except change in the figures of quantum. In short, sole grievance of the Revenue in all these appeals is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting demand raised by the AO under section 206C(6A)/206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the following amounts in respect of respective assessment years:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
