Court No. - 4 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 81 of 2017 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS) & Another Respondent :- U.P. State Transport Corporation Thru' R.M. Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Mahajan AND Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 290 of 2017 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS) & Another Respondent :- U.P. State Transport Corporation Thru' R.M. Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J. These appeals arise from decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.04.2017 passed in ITA No. 2517/2518/Delhi/2010 for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10. following questions of law have been framed by revenue. 1. "Whether Tribunal is justified in confirming order of CIT(A) in coming to conclusion that provisions of Section 194-I of Act will not be applicable in present case despite ingredients for applicability of Section 194-I are satisfied ?. 2. Whether Tribunal is justified in confirming order of CIT(A) applying provisions of Section 194-C of Act by completely overlooking that Section 194-C deals with contract and sub-contract ? 3. Whether Tribunal is justified in law in not considering amendment made under Section 194-I w.e.f. 01.06.2007 which includes income paid/credit on account of machinery/plant & machinery/equipment has been covered u/s 194-I of Act and included in "Rent" hence tax was required to be deducted @ 10% ? 4. Whether Tribunal is justified in law in interpreting definition of plant under Section 43(3) of Act ? 5. Whether Tribunal is justified in law in ignoring AO's order regarding applicability of Section 194-I of Act ?" These appeals have been heard together and are hereby decided by common judgment at admission stage itself. We have heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Varad Nath and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel representing respondent-assessee. Tribunal while deciding aforesaid Income Tax Appeals has observed in paragraph no.3 of its decision which is quoted hereinbelow; 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. There is no dispute on factual aspects that assessee paid for hiring of buses and made deduction of tax at source under section 194C @ 2%. Assessing Officer, in his order u/s 201(1A), treated such payment as 'Rent' and directed to deduct tax at source u/s 194-I at 10%. action of AO was overturned in first appeal. It is seen that similar issue came up for consideration before Agra Tribunal in case of UPSRTC, Aligarh in ITA No.52 & 53/Agra/2011. Tribunal vide its order dated 15.11.2011 has upheld deduction of tax at source in similar circumstances u/s 194C. copy of said order is placed at page 58 of paper book. It has been brought to our notice that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT(TDS) vs. UPSRTC in ITA No.556 & 557 of 2011 has also taken similar view. copy of such judgment dated 11.08.2014 has been placed on record. In view of foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing deduction of tax at source u/s 194C. Tribunal has referred that it has been brought to its notice that similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in between same parties in Income Tax Appeal Nos.556 of 2011 and 557 of 2011 and this Court vide order and judgment dated 11.08.2014 has disposed of appeals by observing that Tribunal has correctly interpreted provision of Section 194(C) of Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 556 and 557 of 2011 has further clarified that provision of Section 194(I) of Act has been considered in judgment which has been delivered in case of Income Tax Appeal No. 314 of 2011 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Apeejay School, Apeejay School Campus). In above noted appeals learned Tribunal has confirmed decision of Commissioner, Income Tax (appeal) that assessee had correctly deducted tax at source under Section 194(C) and that provisions of Section 194-I had no application. We are in respectful agreement of decision of this Court of Income Tax Appeal No. 556 of 2011 and 557 of 2011 decided on 11.08.2014 and therefore held that provision of Section 194(C) would apply. appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 10.10.2017 A.Kr.* [Ashok Kumar, J.] [Abhinava Upadhya, J.] Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) & Another v. U.P. State Transport Corporation