HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 677 of 2014 Date: 27.11.2014 Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s. Heramec Limited Hyderabad.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 677 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 04.06.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2009-2010 on the following suggested question of law.
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that the payment of rent for rig, crane, DG set is not liable for TDS (Tax Deduction at Source) under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the possession and control of rig, crane, DG set was with the payees and the payees were operating the same, without appreciating provisions of explanation (i) to Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
We find that the learned Tribunal, on fact, found that the assessee has hired crane and paid the charges therefor after examining the document in support thereof. The learned Tribunal also found that the payment is not made for any rent or actual movement/transport of goods and material and held that it was rightly treated as contract for carrying of work and tax has been deducted in terms of Section 194C.
Similar is the fact finding as far as the use of Diesel Generator set is concerned. The learned Tribunal found that the DG set was under the control and operation of the service provider and the expense on diesel as well as maintenance are borne by the DG owner and held insofar as the payment is concerned that the provisions of Section 194I are not applicable and the assessee has correctly deducted the tax in terms of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
We do not find any element of law in this appeal and there is no allegation or whisper about the perversity of the aforesaid order.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 27.11.2014 ES