O/TAXAP/101/2015 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 101 of 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Opponent(s) Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No. 1 G H VIRK, ADVOCATE for Opponent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 18/03/2015 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. In this appeal, revenue has proposed following questions of law. [A] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of I.T. Act? [B] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering fact that after 13.7.2006, provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of boat and not provision of 194C of Act? [C] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering fact that after 13.7.2006, provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of scroller and display of advertisement, and not provision of section 194C of Act? [D] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in cancelling order u/s Page 1 of 4 O/TAXAP/101/2015 ORDER 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) in respect of hiring charges of buses not considering fact that assessee had failed to deduct tax at source? 2. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, present appeal is admitted to consider following substantial questions of law. [i] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of I.T. Act? [ii] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering fact that after 13.7.2006, provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of boat and not provision of 194C of Act? [iii] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in cancelling order u/s 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) in respect of hiring charges of buses not considering fact that assessee had failed to deduct tax at source? 3. Now so far as proposed question [C] whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering fact that after 13.7.2006, provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of scroller and display of advertisement, and not provision of section 194C of Act is concerned, having heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties and after perusing decision of learned CIT (A) as well as learned ITAT, we are in complete agreement with view taken by learned CIT (A) as well as learned ITAT. While considering issue, learned CIT (A) has observed in para 9 as under: 9. matter has been considered and I think, in my view, same consideration as applied in payment to M/s P & B Media Consultants Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/101/2015 ORDER would be applicable to M/s Chitra Publicity Co. Pvt. Ltd. also. rights obtained by appellant when transaction was entered into with M/s Chitra Publicity Co. Pvt. Ltd. was in form of booking space for advertisements. It would be incorrect to presume that responsibility of utilizing space was on appellant itself and M/s Chitra Publicity Co. Pvt. Ltd. was not required to do any further job than handing over space to appellant to utilize space as appellant desires. In fact, whole transaction was in nature of advertisement and publicity. Therefore, I think assessing officer was not at all correct when he came to conclusion that TDS should have been deducted as per provisions of section 194I. Assessing Officer s action in this context is rejected and appellant s stance is confirmed. 4. aforesaid has been confirmed by learned ITAT. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances and it was not case on behalf of revenue that only space was given on lease and/or contract was entered into only for providing space and therefore, learned CIT (A) as well as learned ITAT have rightly considered whole transaction in nature of advertisement and publicity attracting provisions of section 194C of IT Act. 5. Under circumstances, present appeal qua proposed question [C] is hereby dismissed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Virk waives service of notice of admission for respondent. (M.R.SHAH, J.) Page 3 of 4 O/TAXAP/101/2015 ORDER (S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 4 of 4 Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Gujarat Maritime Board