HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 71 / 2017 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur ----Appellant Versus National Highway Authority Of India Ltd ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat for Mr. R.B. Mathur. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 05/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal and confirmed order of CIT(A). 2. Counsel for appellant has framed following substantial questions of law: A. Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has justified in law and has acted illegally and perversely in holding that assessee is not liable for making payment of TDS u/s. 194C of Act. B. Whether under given facts and circumstances contractual amount paid by NHAI to its concessionary M/s GVK Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway Pvt. Ltd. in name of Grant , is liable for tax deduction u/s 194C of Income-tax Act, 1961 for not. 3. However, now issue is squarely covered by decision of this Court in CIT, Jaipur Vs. National Highway Authority of India Ltd., D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.75/2003 decided on 21.04.2017, wherein it has been held as under: 3. facts of case are that assessee has (2 of 2) [ITA-71/2017] entered into concession agreements with these companies and agreement is on Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) Model. As per these agreements, NHAI has conveyed concession to construct (2 of 2) [ITA-75/2017] Highways, operate and maintain them and collect Toll on these Highways to abovenamed Concessionaries. As per these agreements, concessionaries were to be given certain amount for construction of roads by NHAI. AO observed that assessee (NHAI) had not made TDS as per section 194 C of IT Act, 1961 which appeared to be applicable in instant case in respect of above concessionaries. AO passed order u/s 201 (1)/ 201(1A) on 18.03.2011 creating demand of Rs. 6,56,58,200/- for AY 2006-07 for non deduction of TDS on payment of Contract Money to concessionaries. 4. While considering case, Tribunal has observed as under:- We have gone through terms of agreement. inference drawn by AO is that Grant is nothing but payment to contractor is mis-placed. As per Section 194C, payment is required to be made to contractor but in given case payment is not made to contractor. agreement cannot be stated to be purely contract agreement but it is contract agreement of joint venture. Hence, we do not see any infirmity in order of ld. CIT(A), therefore, same is hereby upheld. 4. Taking into consideration above, appeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. //bmg 16 Commissioner of Income-tax Jaipur v. National Highway Authority Of India Ltd