Itta/677/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. M/S Heramec Limited

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE 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 LimitedHyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE 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 thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 04.06.2014 in relation tothe assessment year 2009-2010 on the following suggested question oflaw. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that the paymentof rent for rig, crane, DG set is not liable for TDS (Tax Deduction atSource) under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on theground that the possession and control of rig, crane, DG set was withthe payees and the payees were operating the same, withoutappreciating provisions of explanation (i) to Section 194I of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?” We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. We find that the learned Tribunal, on fact, found that theassessee has hired crane and paid the charges therefor after examiningthe document in support thereof. The learned Tribunal also found thatthe payment is not made for any rent or actual movement/transport ofgoods and material and held that it was rightly treated as contract forcarrying of work and tax has been deducted in terms of Section 194C. Similar is the fact finding as far as the use of Diesel Generatorset is concerned. The learned Tribunal found that the DG set was underthe control and operation of the service provider and the expense ondiesel as well as maintenance are borne by the DG owner and heldinsofar as the payment is concerned that the provisions of Section 194Iare not applicable and the assessee has correctly deducted the tax interms of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We do not find any element of law in this appeal and there is noallegation 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