TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,1961- Amendment, Articles, News Notifications, Judgments and Detailed Analysis at one place
Income Tax : A large spousal gift exemption was denied due to failure in proving genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of funds. The ruling...
Income Tax : The amendment explicitly includes manpower supply services under contractual provisions, making 1–2% TDS applicable instead of 1...
Income Tax : Learn when and how TDS applies to payments for contractual work, including rates, thresholds, exemptions, and recent amendments....
Income Tax : Delhi High Court rules CAM charges are contractual payments under Section 194C, not rent under Section 194I, clarifying TDS obliga...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai ruled that gold wastage during ornament manufacturing isn't considered a payment for making charges, so TDS under Sec...
Income Tax : From October 2024, payments under Section 194J (professional fees) will be excluded from TDS under Section 194C (payments to contr...
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 : The ITAT Delhi held that contractual receipts reflected in the PAN of a dissolved partnership firm could not be taxed again when t...
Income Tax : ITAT holds TDS applies on year-end provisions where payee, amount, and nature are identifiable—assessee treated in default u/s 2...
Income Tax : The case examined whether contract receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not disclosed as income could be taxed. The Tribunal upheld...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remanded ₹49.43 lakh sundry creditor addition and ₹3.74 lakh TDS disallowance, holding that lack of proper evid...
Income Tax : The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that taxpayers must seek AO determination under Section 195(2) in all cases. It hel...
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...
Assessee has made payments to the CDLB for supply of these workers. As long as the assessee has made payments to the CDLB for supply of labour, even when this labour may be treated as employed by the assessee for all practical purposes, the provisions of Section 194 C are clearly attracted. In such a situation, i.e. when labour hired by the assessee through CDLB is considered to be in assessee’s employment, the payments made to CDLB cannot be treated as payments for ‘any work’ , but nevertheless these payments could still be covered by the provisions of Section 194 C because these are payments made for ‘supply of labour’ which are specifically covered by Section 194 C(1).
The assessee, Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd, an Indian Company was engaged in marketing of pharmaceutical products. It was a subsidiary company of NOVA Nordisk, Singapore. One of the products (insulin in medically presentable form), was manufactured by M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (Torrent) and supplied to the assessee company. The raw material was supplied by a foreign company NOVA Nordisk, Denmark. Torrent pursuant to the contract, was required to sell entire output only to the assessee company in India.
Recently, an opinion was sought from me by a client regarding TDS implications under Chapter XVII-B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in respect of merchant service fees payable in the course of settlement of credit card transactions for the purchase of goods / services. In the aforesaid transactions, the functions of the relevant entities may be briefly discussed as follows :
CIT Vs. Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd. (HC of Karnataka)- We find that this is not simply a situation of a product manufactured to the specifications of the assessee, being sold to the assessee at the price fixed by the supplier but this is a situation where a product manufactured out of raw materials supplied by a foreign company who had direct interest in the assessee company so manufactured to the specification of the assessee company utilising the technical know-how supplied by it and also labelling the product with the brand name of the assessee and supplying the entire product only to the assessee company
SKIL Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The nature of arrangement entered by the appellant for transportation of its employees between residence to office is similar to the arrangement mentioned in the circular No. 558, dated 28th March 1990, issued by the CBDT regarding the applicability of the provisions of section 194C of the Act to the hire charges paid to bus owners. Apartment from this, other circulars (ie., circular number 681 dated March, 8, 1994, circular No. 713 dated August 2, 1995 and circular number 715 dated August 8, 1995) have specifically provided that the provisions of section 1 94C of the Act shall apply in case where bus or any other mode of transport is chartered. Based on the reading of the circulars, I am of the opinion that payments made by the appellant are of similar nature and hence tax should be deductible under section 1 94C of the Act;
Arrangement for transportation of petroleum products was essentially a contract for transportation of goods and not an arrangement of hiring of vehicles. In view thereof, tax is required to be deducted at source from the payments to the carrier in terms of provisions of sec. 194C of the Act and not u/s 194I of the Act.
Trade Discount : In the case of S.D. Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 948/Coch/2008, A.Y. 2005-06, dt. 5-5- 2009. It was held that trade discount are not in the nature of commission and hence no TDS is required to be deducted u/s 194H of the act. This was again confirmed in the case of Add CIT v Pearl Bottling (P) Limited.
ITO, Bharuch Vs The Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It is pertinent to note that in the assessment order, the AO disallowed the entire payment made to the farmers amounting to Rs.2,57,62,253/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of he IT Act. Apart from this, the AO disallowed Rs. 51,47,250/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of Rs.51,47,250/- was made twice i.e. once under Section 40A(3) and then invoking section 40(a(ia).
ITO Vs Rajesh Kr Garg (ITAT Kolkata) In the present case the claim of the asse see is that at the time of paying the interest to the 34 persons mentioned in the assessment order, he had before him the appropriate declarations in the prescribed form from the payees stating that no tax was payable by them in respect of their total income and therefore tax need not be deducted from interest under section 194A, and in the light of these declarations he had no option but to make the payment of interest without any tax deduction.
Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) -Whether CIT(A) has erred in confirming the dis-allowance of Rs. 7,93,34,193/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has filed Form No. 15J with CIT on 26.02.2009 instead of on or before 30th June, 2006 in as much the there is no failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C since the assessee has received Form No.15-I from the sub-contractors before making payment to them. Held , No The decision on deductibility of tax on payment made to sub-contractor is to be taken at time when contractor is releasing payments to sub-contractors and it is at that point of time second proviso to section 194C(3)(i) would come into play and when Form No. 15-I are submitted by sub-contractors to contractor, then contractor is not required to deduct tax from such payments, whereas compliance of third proviso can be deferred till 30th June of next financial year.
