Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0105-33]

Citation 2015-LL-0105-33
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)
Respondent Name Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/01/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags deduction of tds • question of law
Bot Summary: The present appeals are directed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in the respective matters, whereby the Tribunal, for the reasons recorded in the orders, has allowed the appeals of the assessee and has dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. As such the Tribunal, upon examination of the Page 1 of 4 O/TAXAP/1389/2014 ORDER facts, has found that the contracts were pertaining to hiring agreement and not rental agreement. The Tribunal has also relied upon the decision of another Tribunal in the case of Heramac Ltd., in ITA No.1342 and No.1343/Hyd/2013. Mr.Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant made an attempt to contend that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was hiring agreement and not rental agreement is not correct, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not dealt with the factual aspect in detail to record the said conclusion by way of a final authority for finding of fact. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel that if the Tribunal has recorded any erroneous finding of fact or has not properly interpreted the terms of the agreement, such would fall in the arena of substantial question of law. The Tribunal, after considering the earlier decision of another Tribunal at Hyderabad, at paragraph 9 observed thus:- Further before us, Revenue could not controvert the findings of ld. The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal was Page 3 of 4 O/TAXAP/1389/2014 ORDER satisfied on facts that it was hiring agreement and not rental agreement.


O/TAXAP/1389/2014 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1389 of 2014 with TAX APPEAL NO. 1390 of 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) Appellant(s) Versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. Opponent(s)Appearance: MR MR BHATT, ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 05/01/2015 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. present appeals are directed against impugned orders passed by Tribunal in respective matters, whereby Tribunal, for reasons recorded in orders, has allowed appeals of assessee and has dismissed appeals of Revenue. 2. We have heard Mr.M.R. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for appellant. 3. As such Tribunal, upon examination of Page 1 of 4 O/TAXAP/1389/2014 ORDER facts, has found that contracts were pertaining to hiring agreement and not rental agreement. Based on same, Tribunal found that provisions of Section 194-C of Income Tax Act for deduction of TDS would apply and not Section 194-I of Act. Tribunal has also relied upon decision of another Tribunal in case of Heramac Ltd., in ITA No.1342 and No.1343/Hyd/2013. Based on same, after examining facts of present case, has allowed appeal holding that deduction under Section 194-C would be applicable and not Section 194-I as contended by Revenue. 4. Mr.Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for appellant made attempt to contend that finding recorded by Tribunal that it was hiring agreement and not rental agreement is not correct, inasmuch as Tribunal has not dealt with factual aspect in detail to record said conclusion by way of final authority for finding of fact. He submitted that even if agreements are not properly considered by Tribunal, it would be substantial question of law to be considered in present appeals being Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/1389/2014 ORDER under Section 260-A of Act. He, therefore, submitted that appeals deserve consideration. 5. We cannot proceed on basis that Parliament would not be aware about difference between rental agreement and hiring agreement. Hiring agreement cannot be treated as rental agreement, since as per Civil Law, rights and liabilities of parties may be different. We cannot accept contention of learned Counsel that if Tribunal has recorded any erroneous finding of fact or has not properly interpreted terms of agreement, such would fall in arena of substantial question of law. As such, scope of appeal under Section 260-A of IT Act is limited to substantial question of law and cannot be considered based on any question of fact. Tribunal, after considering earlier decision of another Tribunal at Hyderabad, at paragraph 9 observed thus:- Further before us, Revenue could not controvert findings of ld. CIT(A), nor has brought any contrary binding decision in its support. Revenue could not distinguish facts in case of Heramac Ltd.(supra) with that of Assessee. ... 6. aforesaid shows that Tribunal was Page 3 of 4 O/TAXAP/1389/2014 ORDER satisfied on facts that it was hiring agreement and not rental agreement. Such finding of fact cannot be re-examined by us in appeal under Section 260-A on ground as sought to be canvassed. 7. In our view, scope of applicability of Section 194-C and Section 194-I are different, for which no substantial question arises for interpretation or for examination before this Court. 8. attempt was made to contend that there is no discussion by Tribunal even on finding of fact being final authority for finding of fact. In our view, such could not be said to be substantial question of law as sought to be canvassed. 9. In view of above, we find that appeals are meritless. Hence, dismissed. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) (S.H.VORA, J.) vinod Page 4 of 4 Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
Report Error