Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Gujarat Maritime Board - 2015-LL-0318-89

Citation	2015-LL-0318-89
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)
Respondent Name	Gujarat Maritime Board
Court	HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	18/03/2015
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	service of notice • interest • non-deduction of tax at source • tds • transport hire charges • hire charges
Bot Summary:	A Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the I.T. Act B Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering the fact that after 13.7.2006, the provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of boat and not the provision of 194C of the Act C Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering the fact that after 13.7.2006, the provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of scroller and display of advertisement, and not the provision of section 194C of the Act Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/102/2015 ORDER 2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. I Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the I.T. Act ii Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering the fact that after 13.7.2006, the provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of boat and not the provision of 194C of the Act 3. Now so far as proposed question C whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not considering the fact that after 13.7.2006, the provision of 194I is applicable on hiring charges of scroller and display of advertisement, and not the provision of section 194C of the Act is concerned, having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the decision of the learned CIT as well as learned ITAT, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned CIT as well as learned ITAT. 4. The aforesaid has been confirmed by the learned ITAT. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and it was not the case on behalf of the revenue that only space was given on lease and/or contract was entered into only for providing the space and therefore, the learned CIT as well as the learned ITAT have rightly considered the whole transaction in the nature of advertisement and publicity attracting the provisions of section 194C of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, the present appeal qua proposed question C is hereby dismissed. Learned advocate Mr. Virk waives service of notice of admission for the respondent.

O/TAXAP/102/2015 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 102 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? Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/102/2015 ORDER 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? 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. 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. Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/102/2015 ORDER 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.) (S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Gujarat Maritime Board

Metadata

Judgment