TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,1961- Amendment, Articles, News Notifications, Judgments and Detailed Analysis at one place
Income Tax : Learn about TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act for payments to contractors. Includes rates, who needs to deduct, contrac...
Income Tax : Navigate tax complexities in transactions with government entities under Section 196 of the Income Tax Act. Explore tax deductions...
Income Tax : Dive into the intricacies of TDS under Sections 194C, 194H, 194J, and explore their critical relation with Section 194M. Clear ins...
Income Tax : Details of Form 13 & section 194C(6) of Income Tax Act 1961. Learn importance of these for transporters & how to avoid excess TDS ...
Income Tax : Updated TDS Rate Chart for FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25). Find the latest rates for tax deduction at source for various transactions. Ea...
Income Tax : Section 194C(6) provides exemption to small good carriage contractor/transporter (owning not more than 10 goods carriage at any ti...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has sought a reply from Samsung India Electronics on the I-T department plea that the firm is liable to deduct ...
Income Tax : The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) expanded the scope of professional services to cover sportspersons, umpires and referees,...
Income Tax : Andhra Pradesh High Court quashes prosecution against Aditya Institute for delayed TDS deposit, citing reasonable cause under Sect...
Service Tax : CESTAT Delhi rules service tax exemption for providing vehicles on hire to GTA. Detailed analysis of the Manak Chand Agarwal vs CG...
Income Tax : In a case before ITAT Delhi, it was ruled that payment made overseas for tariff information does not constitute 'FTS', hence no TD...
Income Tax : Assessing Officer has nowhere determined as to how Section 194C is applicable on payments made by assessee. Unless a charge is bei...
Income Tax : Tribunal restored the matter of AO’s disallowance, which was deemed inconsistent with Section 115JB by directing assessee’s cl...
Income Tax : Law Related to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on payments by television channels and publishing houses to advertisement companies f...
Income Tax : Law Relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on payments by broadcasters or television channels to production houses for product...
Income Tax : Circular No. 9/2012 Representations have been received from various sections of the Industry on the difficulties faced in the matt...
Income Tax : CIRCULAR NO. 1/2008-Income Tax Representations have been received from various quarters regarding applicability of the provisions ...
Income Tax : Circular No. 715-Income Tax Clarifications on various provisions relating to tax deduction at source regarding changes introduced...
Dy. CIT v Niten Hasmukhbhai Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Since the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that there was no oral or written contract with the assessee and the Roopal Roadways which is confirmed by the clarificatory certificate issued by Roopal Roadways, was not disputed by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that provision of section 194C(3) of the Act are not applicable in this case and consequently no addition u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made.
ACIT Vs M/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) – A perusal of the terms and conditions as also the invoices as found in the paper book clearly shows that sales tax and excise duty had been collected on the supply of materials by the vendors to the assessee. In these circumstances, in view of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. in S.L.P. No. 18012/2009 dated 17-08-2010, referred to supra, we are of the view that the transaction involved in the present case is a contract for sale and not a contract for carrying out any works.
S. 194C defines work to include carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways while s. 194-I defines rent to mean payment for use of plan (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for carriage of passengers for which the assessee paid a fixed amount. Therefore, the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not rent for s. 194-I.
There is no material on record brought by the AO to prove that there was any written or oral agreement between the assessee and the transporter for carriage of goods. There is no material to establish that any payment exceeded the prescribed limits during the financial year. As per the decision of the HC in case of United Rice Mill Ltd (322 ITR 594) laid down that Section 194C cannot be invoked to hold the assessee liable for deduction of tax only on the assumption that assessee was having agreement with the parties through whom transportation of goods was carried out.
ACIT (TDS) vs Accenture Services P Ltd. – The provisions of section 194C shall apply to all types of contracts for carrying out work including transport contract, service contract etc. Transport contract would also include contract for loading and unloading of goods and also cover contracts for plying buses along with the staff
The assessee, hired Millers and Rollers, for the purpose of carrying out his road contract works. According to the revenue, since in the case on hand, the hire charges in respect of both the Millers and Rollers hired by the assessee contained a portion of labour charges incurred by the respective owners of the concerned vehicles/machineries towards operation of the respective vehicles/machineries along with labour and consequently, the relevant provision applicable for effecting TDS was section 194C and not 194-I of the Income Tax Act.
CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Levy of penalty under section 271C is not automatic. Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned provision the same was without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessed to show that there existed reasonable cause which was the reason for the failure referred to in the concerned provision. Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider whether the Explanationn offered by the assessee or the person, as the case may be, as regards the reason for failure, was on account of reasonable cause. “Reasonable cause” as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. It can be described as a probable cause. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that same was the right thing to do. The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the prescribed consequences will follow.
On the issue of whether such payments are, alternatively, in the nature of fees for technical services (FTS), liable to tax withholding under any other provision of the ITL, the Mumbai ITAT restored the matter to the Tax Authority for fresh adjudication in the light of the Supreme Court’s (SC) directions in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. Hi (Bharti ruling). In this ruling, the SC was concerned with the issue of applicability of withholding tax on interconnection charges paid by one telecom operator to another, on the basis that it constituted FTS. The SC, noting that FTS has been given a restrictive meaning by several High Courts (HC) and ITATs, had referred the matter back to the Tax Authority for fresh adjudication, by taking into account an expert’s opinion on whether any human intervention is actually involved in such transactions.
In the case of Vikas Road Carriers Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-417-ITAT-MUM] the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), ruled that, in light of the very typical facts of the case, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for non-withholding of tax since the payments to the transporters were less than Rs. 20,000 each, and less than Rs. 50,000 in a year to any party and hence did not attract the withholding tax provisions of section 194C of the Act. The Tribunal relied very heavily on the fact that while the assessee had given details of expenses incurred, the revenue authorities were unable to dispute the assessee’s statement that the expenses in question did not exceed the limit of Rs. 20,000 per payment, and Rs. 50,000 per payee per year.
We have summarised below few frequently asked questions and answers which arise in respect of deduction of TDS on transport Charges and in respect of TDS return filing requirement when no TDS been deducted on Transport Charges Paid to the Transporte
