IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS PRINCIPAL OFFICER (DDO), AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITH ITA/4/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS PRINCIPAL OFFICER (DDO), AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITH ITA/5/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS PRINCIPAL OFFICER (DDO), AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITH ITA/6/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS PRINCIPAL OFFICER (DDO), AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.V Soman Advocate for Respondent : Mr. U.K.Patil. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: January 05, 2015. PER COURT : 1. only question that arose between parties in this case was whether contract in question is Uploaded on - 08/01/2015 Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 14:35:38 2 ITA NOS.3,4,5,6.14.odt contract contemplated under section 194C of Income Tax Act. Authorities below held concurrently that it is not covered by Section 194C. We perused judgments below and found them to be correct. There appears no substantials question of law arising in this appeal. contract in question was quite peculiar one. In one case, Corporation awarded right to Transport Agency to ply buses on Aurangabad City Roads. For giving such right Transporter was to pay certain amount to Corporation as royalty. In other case Corporation gave contract of collection of octroi to party. Party was under obligation to pay fix sum to Corporation. In both these cases Contractor did not get any amount from Corporation which is contemplated under section 194C. 2. In view of this, Judgments below are found to be correct. Appeals stand dismissed. (V.K. JADHAV, J.) (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.). aaa/ Uploaded on - 08/01/2015 Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 14:35:38 Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Pune v. Principal Officer (DDO), Aurangabad Municipal Corporation