TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions ByK.C.

Singhal,Advocate History This section was introduced in the year 1972 and subsequently amended from time to time. The scope of the said provision has been explained by CBDT from time to time through various circulars bearingNos.86datedMay29,1972,93dated26.9.1972,558dated28.3.1990,681dated8.3.1994,714 dated3.8.1995,723dated19.9.1995,,715dated8.8.1995and13dated13.122006.Thissectionhasalso beensubstitutedbyFinance(No2)Act2009. Salientfeatures This section provides that tax is to be deducted at source against payments made to contractors/subcontractors.Thefollowingsarethesalientfeaturesofthesectionasitstandstoday: TDS is to be made at the prescribed rate where payment is made for carrying out any work (includingsupplyoflabourforcarryingoutanywork)byacontractor; Such work must be in pursuance of a contract (including sub contract) between the contractorandaspecifiedpersonasdefinedintheExplanation; TherecipientofpaymentmustbearesidentofIndia; TDS is to be made at the time of credit to the account of contractor or at the time of paymentincashorbychequeordraftorbyanyothermodewhicheverisearlier; TDS is to be made @ 1% where payment is to be made to an individual or a HUF and @ 2% in othercases; Where TDS is required to be made for the work of manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased fromthecustomer,TDSshallbemadeontheinvoicevalueexcludingthevalueofmaterial,if such value is mentioned separately in the invoice and where value of the material is not mentioned separately in the invoice then TDS shall be made on the whole of invoice value (subsection3); No TDS is required to be made by an individual or a HUF where payment is required to be made to the contractor for the work carried out for the personal purpose of such individual/HUF(subsection4); No TDS is to be made where sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid does not exceed Rs.30000/. However, if aggregate of the amount of such sums credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid in the financial year exceeds Rs.75,000/, TDS is required to be made(subsection5); NoTDSisto bemadewheresuchsumiscreditedtotheaccountoforpaid tothecontractor inthecourseofbusinessofplying,hiringorleasingofgoodscarriagesifthePANisfurnished bythecontractor.GoodscarriageshallmeanasdefinedunderMotorVehicleAct1988.

1 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

Thewordworkinthissectionwouldinclude (a) advertising; (b) broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting ortelecasting; (c) carriageofgoodsandpassengersbyanymodeoftransportotherthanrailways; (d) catering; (e) Manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customerbyusingthematerialpurchasedfromsuchcustomer, butdoesnotincludemanufacturingorsupplyingaproductaccordingtotherequirement orspecificationofacustomerbyusingthematerialpurchasedfromaperson,otherthan suchcustomer.

Interpretation of the expression carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying outanywork) The major controversy between the tax payers and the department throughout had centered round the interpretation of the expression carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work). At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer the first circular No 86 dated 29.5.72 wherein it was clarified by the CBDT that section 194C would apply only in relation to 'works contracts" and "labour contracts" and would not cover contracts for sale of goods. In the said circular, it was made clear that the contracts for rendering of professional services by lawyers, physicians, surgeons, engineers, accountants, architects, consultants, etc., could not be regarded as contracts'forcarryingoutanywork" and,accordingly,nodeductionofincometaxneedtobemade frompaymentsrelatingtosuchcontracts. InanothercircularbearingNo.93,datedSeptember26,1972,itwasstatedthatservicecontractsnot involving the "carrying out of any work" are outside the scope of section 194C. It further clarified that the provisions of section 194C will not be applicable to transport contracts. This circular, inter alia,statesthatatransportcontractcannotordinarilyberegardedasa"contractforcarryingoutany work" and, as such, no deduction in respect of income tax is required to be made from payments made under such a contract. In the case of a composite contract involving transport as well as loadingandunloading,theentirecontractwillberegardedasa"workscontract"andincometaxwill have to be deducted from payments made thereunder. Where, however, the element of labour providedforloadingandunloadingisnegligible,noincometaxwillbedeductible. The expression carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) was alsothesubjectmatterofinterpretationbythecourts. AssociatedCementCo.LimitedvsCIT201ITR435SC:inthiscase,theassesseeenteredintocontract with a contractor for supply of labour for loading and unloading of goods. The question before the court was whether assessee was required to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the contractor.Theapexcourtobservedasunder: 2 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 "Any work" means any work and not a "works contract", which has a special connotation in the tax law. Indeed, in the subsection, the " work " referred to therein expressly includes supplyoflabourtocarryoutawork.ItisaclearindicationoftheLegislaturethatthe"work" in the subsection is not intended to be confined to or restricted to " works contract. Work envisaged in the subsection, therefore, has a wide import and covers "any work" which one or the other of the organisations specified in the subsection can get carried out through a contractor under a contract and further it includes obtaining by any of such organisations supplyoflabourunderacontractwithcontractor,forcarryingoutitsworkwhichwouldhave fallenoutsidethe"work",butforitsspecificinclusioninthesubsection. However, the above decision was misunderstood by the revenue as well as some High Courts. The CBDT, considering the SC judgment, was of the view that such expression is of widest import and, therefore, would include all types of contract. Accordingly, it issued a circular No 681 dated 8.3.94 whereinitwasstatedthatinviewofSCjudgment,section194Cwouldapplytoalltypesofcontracts including transport contracts, labour contracts, service contracts, advt. contracts, broadcasting contracts, telecasting contracts, material contracts and works contracts. This led to filing of various writpetitionsbeforevarioushighcourts. In the meantime, Finance Act 1995 also amended the section wef 1.7.95 by inserting Explanation III bywhichtheexpressionworkincludedthefollowings: (a) advertising; (b) broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting ortelecasting; (c) carriageofgoodsandpassengersbyanymodeoftransportotherthanrailways; (d) catering. The apex court, in the case of Birla Cement WorksvsCBDT 248 ITR 216 has clarified by holding that the contract for carriage of goods simpliciter would not fall u/s 194C. It was pointed out that the earlier decision in case of Associated Cement Co has been misunderstood by the CBDT. The ratio of thatdecisionwasexplainedasunder: It is evident that Associated Cement Co. Ltd.'s case [1993] 201 ITR 435 (SC), was not in respect of transport contracts. The controversy therein was deduction of tax at source from payments made for loading and unloading of goods. The question whether the expression "carrying out any work" would include therein carrying of the goods or not, was not in issue in Associated Cement Co. Ltd.'s case [1993] 201 ITR 435 (SC). That is precisely the question in the present case. The decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd.'s case [1993] 201 ITR 435 (SC) has not been correctly understood by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It would not be correcttocometotheconclusion,astheCentralBoardofDirectTaxesdid,thatthequestion involved is covered by the decision in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd.'s case [1993] 201ITR435(SC).

3 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 Thus, the court held that the expression "Carrying out any work" would not include carriage of goods. Accordingly, the impugned circular to the extent it related to transport contracts was quashed. The carriage of goods would be covered only from 1.7.95 because of insertion of ExplanationIIIwhichwasheldtobeprospective. At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention that various High Courts also declared that the circular No 681 dated 8.3.94 was illegal to the extent it included various service contracts within the scopeofsection194Cof theAct.Itisnotnecessarytodiscussthosedecisionsindetailsincemostof the said services have been brought within the net of TDS provisions. However, some important decisions are being discussed where important observations have been made on the interpretation ofthesaidexpression. S.R.F.FinanceLimitedvsCBDT211ITR861(Del): The issue before the court was whether payments made to broker/commission agent would fall within the scope of section 194C. Considering the various circulars and the various amendments proposedanddropped,itwasobserved: One more factor makes the meaning of the section beyond the pale of any doubt. If the term "any work" in section 194C by itself covers any kind of service, the words found in the bracket, in subsection (1) of section 194C will have to be treated as otiose or superfluous. Supplyoflabourtocarryoutanywork,isaconceptthatfallswithintheconceptof"service"; if so, why should Parliament include these words in the bracket, to give an expanded meaning to the term "any work". The Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd.'s case [1993] 201 ITR 435 clearly pointed out that but for the specific inclusion of those words (i.e., "including supply of labour for carrying out any work"), in section 194C, obtaining of supply of labour for carrying out the work would have fallen outside the word "work". The concludingpartoftheSupremeCourtobservationquotedabovebringsoutthetruepurport oftheterm"anywork"insection194C. "Any work", certainly is aterm of wide import ; butit is notso wide as to comprise within its scope the obtaining of the supply of labour to carry out the work, because, the latter concept is essentially, a concept falling within the sphere of "services". However, the term "any work" is wide enough to cover any kind of work which one can get carried out through another.Theessentialityisthat,itshouldbea"work"whichistobe"carriedout". Inviewoftheaboveobservations,itwasheldthatactofbroker/commissionagentamountstoactof serviceandthusoutsidethepurviewofsection194C.Thisdecisionhasbeenquotedjusttoemphasis the importance of expression in the section. Otherwise, such payments are now covered by section 194H. EastIndiaHotelsvsCBDT320ITR526(Bom):

4 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 Theissuebeforethecourtwaswhetherservicesprovidedbyahotelierwouldfallwithinthescopeof thesaidexpression.Thecourtansweredinnegativebyobservingasunder: The expression carrying out any work in section 194C is limited to any work which on being carried out culminates in to a product result. In other words, the word work in section 194C is limited to doing something with a view to achieve the task undertaken or to carryoutanoperationwhichproducessomeresult. The services rendered by a hotel to its customers by making available certain facilities/amenities like providing multilingual staff , 24 hour service for reception, telephones, select restaurants, bank counter, beauty saloon, barbar shop, car rental, shopping centre, laundry, health club, business centre services etc do not involve carrying out any work which results into production of the desired object and therefore, would be outsidethepurviewofsection194CoftheAct. KurukshetraDarpans(P.)LimitedvsCIT169Taxman344PH Inthiscase,theassesseewasacablenetworkoperatorwhowasinthebusinessofdistributingcable connections to the customers and charged subscription fee from them. The appellantassessee enteredintoacontractwiththelicensorofvariousTVchannelsforlocalcabledistributionsystem.(A Y 200607) It is relevant to mention here that these licensors are not the owners of the TV channels and they only have the exclusive right to market and distribute satellite based television service to various customers and users of the service. In the abovementioned contract, the assessee was referredtoassubscriberoraffiliateashewastopaythesubscriptiontoanotherpartyreferredtoas the licensor. These channels are telecasted from abroad and the assessee becomes an affiliate or subscriber of the licensor by entering into an agreement for payment of subscription. The question beforethecourtwascableoperatorwasrequiredtodeducttaxu/s194C.thecourtheldasunder: 15. From the recital of the agreement itself, it is clear that the service that the assessee subscriber is availing is the receipt of 'telecasting signals' from the licensor or the company. Theexpression'service'hasalsobeenreferredtomeantheTVchannelwhichisdealtwithby the licensor or the company. Therefore, what the assessee has transacted for with the licensor or company certainly includes within its ambit broadcasting and telecasting facility. The essence of the contract is to obtain broadcasting and telecasting of TV channels and thereafter its distribution amongst ultimate customers through the cable network of the assessee. 16. Another plea of the assessee/subscriber was that the licensor or the person to whom the assessee is making payment by itself does not do the work of broadcasting and telecasting andisthereforeoutsidethepurviewofsection194CoftheAct.Thisargumentdeservestobe negated at the threshold. As we have pointed out earlier what the assesseesubscriber is lookingforistoobtainthetelecastsignalsfromthelicensor,whichisenoughtodeducethat the impugned contract involves broadcasting and telecasting of TV signals. Moreover, the licensor or the company, as is evident from the specimen agreement on record, in the 5 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 businessofdistributionofsatellitebasedTVchannelsandhasexclusiverightstomarket and distribute said services in India, the service that is referred to in the agreement is the broadcastingandtelecastingofTVsignals. Comment: in the case of cable network, no broadcasting is involved as mentioned in the judgment. However,thejudgmentwouldapplysincetelecastingisinvolved.Itis,howeverlearntthataSLPhas beenadmittedonthisissuebytheSupremeCourt. EntertainmentOneIndiaLtdvsITO(tds)126ITD491(Mum) The assessee made advances to the producers who approached the assessee with the film projects. AO was of the view that assessee should have deducted tax u/s 194C. The tribunal was of the view that agreement was merely a finance agreement and there was no relationship as that of principal andcontractor.Hence,section194Cwasnotapplicable. Workscontract/jobwork There is no dispute thatworks contract (including job work) are covered within the scope of section 194C of the Act. But there has always been disputes between the tax payers and the department whetheraparticularcontractisaworkscontractorcontractof sale.ThehonbleSupremeCourthas decidedsuchissueinmanycases.ItwouldbeappropriatetoreferthedecisioninthecaseofStateof Himachal Pradesh vs Associated Hotels, AIR 1972 SC 1131; [1972] 29 STC 474 (SC) wherein the court observedinpara9asunder: "Thedifficultywhichthecourtshaveoftentomeetwithinconstruingacontractofworkand labour, on the one hand, and a contract for sale, on the other, arises because the distinction between the two is very often a fine one. This is particularly so when the contract is a composite one involving both a contract of work and labour and a contract of sale. Nevertheless, the distinction between the two rests on a clear principle. A contract of sale is onewhose mainobjectisthetransferofpropertyin,andthedeliveryofthepossession of,a chattelasachatteltothebuyer.Wheretheprincipalobjectofworkundertakenbythepayee of the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one of work and labour. The test is whether or not the work and labour bestowed end in anything that can properlybecomethesubjectofsale;neithertheownershipofmaterials,northevalueofthe skill and labour as compared with the value of the materials, is conclusive, although such matters may be taken into consideration in determining, in the circumstances of a particular case, whether the contract is in substance one for work and labour or one for the sale of a chattel." "Fromthedecisionsearlierciteditclearly,emergesthatsuchdeterminationdependsineach case upon its facts and circumstances. Mere passing of property in an article or commodity during the course of the performance of the transaction in question does not render it a transactionofsale.For,eveninacontractpurelyofworkorservice,itispossiblethatarticles may have to be used by the person executing the work and property in such articles or 6 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 materials may pass to the other party. That would not necessarily convert the contract into one of sale of those materials. In every case the court would have to find out what was the primary object of the transaction and the intention of the parties while entering into it. It may in some cases be that even while entering into a contract of work or even service, parties might enter into separate agreements, one of work and service and the other of sale and purchase of materials to be used in the course of executing the work or performing the service. But, then in such cases the transaction would not be one and indivisible, but "would fallintotwoseparateagreements,oneofworkorserviceandtheotherofsale." So, it is the dominant object which would determine the nature of the contract. If the dominant object is to transfer the chattel as chattel then it would be a contract of sale even though goods mighthavebeenmanufacturedaspertherequirementandspecificationoftheclient.Hence,section 194C would not be applicable. On the other hand, if the dominant object is to carry out a work, it wouldbeaworkscontracteventhoughsomematerialmighthavebeenusedintheexecutionofthe contract. In such cases, section 194C would be attracted. This test has been applied by the courts/tribunalinvariouscasesmentionedbelow. This can be explained by giving two examples. A wants his office to be renovated. He enters into a contract with B under which B agrees to execute the work of painting and polishing with his own material. In such a case, the dominant object is the execution of work irrespective of the fact that property in goods passes in the course of executing the work. Hence, it will be a case of works contractandtheprovisionsofsection194Cwouldapply. Take another example where A wants to purchase uniforms for its employees. So, he enters into a contract with B under which B is required to supply the uniform as per the specification provided by A. B purchases the material from the market and prepares the uniforms as per the specification and deliversthesametoAagainstpayment.Insuchacase,thedominantobjectispurchaseofchattelas chattel irrespective of the fact that supply is to be made as per the specification of the customer. Hence,section194Cwouldnotapply. Thejudicialviewonthisissuemaybenotedfromthefollowingdecisions: CITvsGlenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd 324 ITR 199(Bom): In this case, assessee entered in to a contract with other party under which the other was required to supply the goods as per its requirements and specification. The other party purchased the material from the market and then manufactured the desired item. No TDS was made while making the payments. AO was of the view thatassesseeshouldhavedeductedthetaxu/s194C.Thecourtheld: The expression carrying out any work in section 194C would not include a case where (i) where the property in the article or thing passes to the customer upon delivery, and (ii) the material that was required was not purchased/sourced from the purchaser/customer, but waspurchasedorindependentlyobtainedbythemanufacturerfromapersonotherthanthe customer. 7 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 The rationale behind this was that where a customer provides the material, what the manufacturer does is to convert the material in to a product desired by the customer, the contractessentiallyinvolvesworkoflabourandnotasale.(page218) It is also held that even the revenue had this view consistently which is apparent from the CBDT circular no 86 dated 29.5.72, circular No 108 dated 20.5.73 as well as the clarification regarding the word work in section 194C in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill 2009. (page21617of324ITR).Thememorandumexplainsasunder: To bring clarity on this issue, it is proposed to provide that work shall not include mfg or supplyingaproductaccordingtotherequirementorspecificationofacustomerbyusingraw materialpurchasedfromapersonotherthansuchacustomerassuchacontractisacontract for sale. This will, however, not apply to a contract which does not entail manufacture or supply of an article or thing (e.g. a construction contract). It is also proposed to include mfg or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using rawmaterialpurchasedfromsuchcustomerwithinthedefinitionofsuchwork. Accordingly it was also held that assessee was not required to deduct the tax at source u/s 194C. It was also held that the amendment made in Explanation III to section 194C was clarificatory and wouldapplyretrospectively. Thisviewhasalsobeentakenbythecourtsandthetribunalinthefollowingcases: BDALtd281ITR99(Bom) CITvs Dabur India Ltd 283 ITR 197 (Del) (supply of corrugated boxes were to be made with some labelsprintedonthesame) CITvsSeagram Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. 221 CTR 509 (Del)( a contract of sale packing material on principal principalbasis) CITvsReebokIndiaCo306ITR124(Del)(agreementswithvariousmanufacturerswhomanufacture thesaiditemsaccordingtothespecifications,drawingsanddesignsprovidedbytheassessee.) CITvsGirnarFood&BeveragesPLtd.306ITR23(Guj) CITvsMarkfed304ITR17PH(purchaseofprintedmaterial) Tuareg Marketing (P) LimitedvsACIT 122 TTJ 343 Del (supply of kitchenware as per specification andbrandnameofassessee) WhirlpoolOfIndiaLimitedvsJCIT109TTJ994(Del)

8 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 ITO(TDS)vsMilan Dairy Foods (P) Ltd 7 SOT 901 (Del) & Bangalore Distt Coop Milk producers Societiesunion11SOT539(Bang)(Purchaseofpackingmaterialasperspecificationofcustomernot aworkcontract) PowerGridCorpofIndiavsACIT13SOT347(Hyd) ITOvsVarunBeveragesLtd35SOT443(Agra)(supplyofglassbottles,plasticcratesetc) Section194Cvssection194I(Hiringofships,vehiclesetc) Beforeandaftertheinsertionofsection194I,disputeshavearisenontheissuewhethermerehiring of vehicle would fall within the ambit of section 194C. The judicial view is that mere hiring of vehicle wouldnotfallwithintheambitofsection194C. CITvsPoompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd 282 ITR 3(Mad): In this case, assessee was engaged in shippingbusiness.Ittookonhireashipwhichwasusedbyitinitsbusiness.Itpaidthehiringcharges without deducting the tax at source. The case of the revenue was that section 194C was applicable since Explanation III was clarificatory and had retrospective effect. The court noted that it was not thecaseoftheRevenue thattheassesseeenteredintothesaidcontractwiththeshippingcompany fortransportofcoalfromoneplacetoanother.Hence,thecourtwasoftheviewthatmerehiringof ships for the purpose of using the same in the assessee's business would not amount to a contract forcarryingoutanyworkascontemplatedinsection194C.ItwasalsoheldthatthesaidExplanation wasnotretrospective. The above decision has been followed by the Tribunal in DCITvsSatish Aggarwal And Company 124 TTJ 542(Amr). It has been held that payments made against mere hiring of trucks would not fall withinthescopeofsection194C.Thefollowingobservationsarenoteworthy: 12. For carrying out any work, manpower is the sine qua non and without manpower, it cannot be said that work has been carried out. Under s. 194C of the Act "carrying out any work" is the substance for making a payment relating to such work, liable for deduction tax atsource.Theprovisions ofS.194Careattractedonlywhereanysumispaidforcarrying out anyworkincludingsupplyoflabourforcarryingoutanywork. MythriTransportCorporationvsACIT124TTJ970(Vishakha) In this case, the assessee was engaged in the business of transporting goods. It took on hire trucks from different parties and used them in its business for carrying goods of its clients. The hiring charges were paid without deduction of tax at source. AO was of the view that the assessee should havedeductedtaxatsourceu/s194C.Thetribunalheldthatitwasacaseofmerehiringoftrucksand therefore,section194Cwasnotapplicable.Thetribunalheldasunder: 8.5 It is not established by the Revenue that other lorry owners, from whom the vehicles were hired, have also been fastened with any of the abovesaid liabilities. In a subcontract, a 9 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 prudent contractor would include all the liability clauses in the agreement entered into by him with the subcontractor. The assessee has also claimed before the tax authorities that the responsibility in the whole process lies with it only. Though the passing of liability is not the only criteria to decide about the existence of subcontract, yet this contention of the assessee read with the liability clauses of the work order, cited above, supports its submissionthattheindividualvehicleownersaresimplehirersofthevehicles. the instant case, there is no material to suggest that the other lorry owners involved themselves in carrying out any part of the work undertaken by the assessee by spending their time, energy and by taking the risks associated with the main contract work. In the absence of the abovesaid characteristics attached to a subcontract in the instant case, the payment made to the lorry owners stands at par with the payments made towards salaries, rent,etc.Hencethereasoningofthetaxauthorities,whichisstatedinpara8.3supra,tohold that the payment made for hired vehicles is a subcontract payment, in our opinion, is not correctandnotbasedonrelevantconsiderations. ACITvsAccentureServices(P)ltd44SOT290(Mum) In this case, the assessee deducted tax at source u/s 194C against payments made for hiring of vehicles for transportation of its employees. Under the contract, it was the responsibility of the transporter to provide the staff for running the vehicles as well as for ensuring all legal and operational obligations. The AO treated such payment for hiring of equipment falling u/s 194I and therefore passed an order u/s 201(1) for short deduction of tax. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal haveheldthatitwasatransportcontractfallingu/s194C.Section194Iwasheldtobenotapplicable sincenohiringwasinvolved. Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in the case of Tata AIG General Insurance Co 43 SOT 215(Mum) by observing that no particular car was provided but it was merely an arrangement for transportationofitsemployeesandthereforesection194Cwouldapplyandnotsection194I. DCITvsJapanAirlines93ITD163(Del)&SingaporeAirlines7SOT84(Chennai) Payment to AAI for landing and parking in the case of Japan Airlines, the tribunal observed as under: TheAirportAuthoritiesofIndiasimplygrantedpermissiontolandingandparking.Itdidnot grant any exclusive right or interest to J.A.L. in any specific portion of land or building. It granted a license and also provided certain other facilities not necessarily for use of land but for safe landing and parking in pursuance of the guidelines referred to above. Hence, the payments made by the assessee cannot be termed as payment of rent so as to be covered withinthepurviewofsection194IoftheAct The above view has been followed by the Chennai bench of the tribunal. However, it is to be noted thatthetribunalinthecaseofJapanAirlinesfurtherheldthatlanding&parkingchargesfallu/s194C. 10 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 With due respect, it is submitted that AAI did not carry out any work for the airline. It was a case of mere use of a facility which does not fall within the scope of section 194C as held by the honble DelhiHCinthecaseofEastIndiaHotels(supra). Subsection(2)oldprovision(Subcontract)(privityofcontract) ShreeChoudharyTransportCompanyvsITO225CTR125(Raj): In our view, on the language of s. 194C(2), and the fact that the goods received were sent through truck owners by the appellant, and there was no privity of direct contract' between the truck owners and the cement factory. According to the contract between the appellant and the cement factory,itwastheappellant'sresponsibilitytotransportthecement,andforthattheappellanthired theservicesofthetruck owners, obviouslyassubcontractors.Inthatviewofthematter,wedonot findanyerrorintheimpugnedorderoftheTribunal. SolanDistrictTruckOperatorsTransportCooperativeSociety227CTR299(HP) Facts: The assessees were registered societies/AOP constituted by the truck operators. These societies entered into contracts with the companies such as cement manufacturers for transport of the goods of the companies. The company which had entered into contract with the assessee deducted 2 per cent of the amount paid on account of TDS in terms of s. 194C(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter, the assessee society paid the amount received by it to the members of the society who had actually carried the goods. However, out of the amount paid a nominal amount of Rs. 10 or Rs. 20 was deducted for administrative expenses of running the society and is known as "Parchi charges". The assessee did not retain any other amount except for the "Parchi charges" and the entireamountreceivedbyitfromthecompanywaspaidtothemembers. Held: the entire language of s. 194C(2) which clearly indicates that the payment should be made to the resident who is a subcontractor. The concept of subcontract is intrinsically linkedwiths.194C(2).Ifthereisnosubcontractthenthepersonisnotliabletodeducttaxat sourceevenifpaymentisbeingmadetoaresident. 13. To understand the nature of the contract, it would be relevant to mention that in the present cases the assessee societies were created by the transporters themselves. The transporters formed the societies or unions with a view to enter into a contract with the companies.Thecompaniesenterintocontractfortransportationofgoodsandmaterialwith the society. However, the society is nothing more than a conglomeration of the truck operators themselves. The assessee societies have been created only with a view to make it easy to enter into a contract with the companies as also to ensure that the work to the individual truck operators is given strictly in turn so that every truck operator has an equal opportunity to carry the goods and earn income. The society itself does not do the work of transportation.Themembersofthesocietyarevirtuallytheownersofthesociety.Itmaybe true that they both have separate juristic entities but the fact remains that the reason for creationofthesocietywasonlytoensurethatworkisprovidedtoallthetruckoperatorson 11 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 an equitable basis. A finding of fact has been rendered by the authorities that the societies were formed with a view to obtain the work of carriage from the company since the companies were not ready to enter into a contract with the individual truck operators but hadaskedthemtoformasociety. 14. Admittedly, the society does not retain any profits. It only retain as nominal amount as "parchicharges"whichisusedformeetingtheadministrativeexpensesofthesociety.There isnodisputewiththesubmissionthatthesocietyhasanindependentlegalstatusandisalso contractor within the meaning of s. 194C. It is also not disputed that the members have a separate status but there is no subcontract between the society and the members. In fact if the entire working of the society is seen it is apparent that the societies have entered into a contract on behalf of the members. The society is nothing but a collective name for all the members and the contract entered by the society is for the benefit of the constituent membersandthereisnocontractbetweenthesocietyandthemembers. In view of the above observations, it was held that there was no sub contract as such and consequently,theunionwasnotrequiredtodeductthetaxatsource.However,itispointedoutthat SLPhasbeenadmittedbytheSCandthematterisstillpending. EMCvsITO37SOT31 Assessee an event manager assigned the job of art work and photography to others but did not deducttaxatsourceagainstpaymentmadetothem.AOwasoftheviewthatTDSshouldhavebeen madeu/s194C(1)sinceclientsofassesseehaddeductedtaxu/s194J.Theassesseecontendedthatit was a case u/s 194C (2) since part of work was assigned to others. However, copies of agreements with the clients not produced by assessee. Hence, the tribunal was of the view that nature of contract was to be seen in the light of treatment given by the clients. Accordingly, the tribunal has confirmedtheviewofAOsinceassesseewasrenderingonlyprofessionalservicesu/s194J. Comment:Withduerespect,inmyview,thenatureofcontractshouldhavebeendeterminedbythe nature of work assigned by the assessee to the other party and not by the treatment given by the clientforTDSpurposes. KavitaChugvsITO44SOT95(Kol) Assesseeengagedintransportbusinessdidnotownanytrucks.Requisitionwasmade ondailybasis from the market for transportation of goods to various destinations. The A contented that she never passed her responsibility to truck owners who only delivered goods at necessary destinations at the instance of assessee. The AO found that 83 truck owners were paid more than Rs.50,000/ each.SincenoTDSwasmade,hedisallowedthedeductionu/s40(a)(ia).Thetribunalheldthatitwas a case of hiring vehicles and therefore, outside the purview of section 194C. Hence, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)wasnotjustified.

12 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 Comment: With due respect, in my view, it was a case of sub contract for transportation of goods. The admitted fact was that truck owners transported the goods and delivered the goods at necessarydestinationattheinstanceoftheassessee.Howitcouldbesaidthatassesseedidnotpass on the responsibility under the contract. Therefore, it could not be considered as contract for hiring ofvehicles. CityTransportCorporationvsITO13SOT479(Mum) Assessee engaged in business of transporting goods entered into contract with two companies for transporting goods from their factory to any place in India. It did not own any truck but hired the samefromdifferenttransportersforexecutingthecontract.Thefreightinrespectofeachtruckwas decidedatthetimeofactualdispatchofgoodsandpaymentineachcasedidnotexceedRs.20,000/. Relying on the circular no 715 dated 8.8.95, it was held that each trip was under a separate contract andtherewasnothingtoshowthatmorethanonetripwasunderthesamecontract.Hence,noTDS wastobemadeu/s194C. ACITvsManishDutt46SOT130(Mum)(URO) Inthiscase,theassesseewasengagedinthebusinessofdubbingworkinhisownstudiocomprising of various dubbing equipments. Whenever, assessees studio could not be used, he used to give the work of dubbing to other studios as a sub contractor. The assessee deducted tax u/s 194C @ 2% but AO was of the view that he should have deducted tax @ 20% u/s 194I. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunalhaveheldthatitwasacontractforwork fallingu/s194Csincetheassesseehadutilizedthe dubbingserviceswhichwasinthenatureofgettingworkdonethroughasubcontractor. Comment:fulljudgmentisnotreportedandtherefore,completefactsarenotavailable.Ifthestudio assuchishandedovertotheassesseeforusebytheassesseeasperhiswishes,inmyview,itwillbe a case u/s 194I but if the possession of the studio continues with the owner and only the work is assignedtobeperformedbytheotherpartythenthecasewouldfallundersection194C. SandsAdvertisingCommunicationsvsDCIT37SOT179(Bang) Assessee was an advertising agency involved in activity of advertising in print media. Its sister concern T was in similar business but was an accredited agency. The assessee entered in to an agreement with T under which all ads created/developed by the assessee for its clients were to be releasedtoprintmediathroughTforwhichcertainconsiderationwastobemadetoT.TheAOwas of the view that section 194C was applicable while the stand of assessee was that T was only a routing agency and not a sub contractor. It was held by the tribunal that section 194C is applicable only when payment is to be made to an advertising agency and not when payment is made by ad agency to print media as clarified in the Circular no 715 of 95. Hence, no TDS was required to be made. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd vs ITO 12 SOT 221 (Del) held that payments made to clearing&forwardingagentfellunder194C&notu/s194J. 13 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 Otheraspects: Contractual paymentvspayment to daily wage workers: the honble Delhi high court in the case of CITvsDewanChand178Taxman173confirmedtheviewoftheTribunalthatpaymentsmadetodaily wageworkerscouldnotbeconsideredascontractualpaymentsu/s194C. CITvsUnited Rice Land Ltd 322 ITR 594 PH: Carriage of goods or passengers on various occasions mustbeunderacontractwhichisarequisiteconditionforapplyingtheprovisionsofsection 194C. Where different trucks were hired on different times independently and the payment of freight did not exceed Rs.20,000/ in respect of each truck, it was held that section 194C wasinapplicable. Following the aforesaid decision, the PHC held in the case of Bhagwati Steels 326 ITR 108 that where the payment was made for purchase of goods (inclusive of freight charged separately) for which there was no separate contract for carriage of goods, the provisions of section 194C could not be applied. Any person responsible for paying any sum: In the case of Cargo linkers 179 Taxman 151/218 CTR 695, thehonbleDHCheldasunder: We are in agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal which has mainly decided an issue of fact, namely, the nature of the contract between the parties concerned. It has also been found as a matter of fact that the contract is actually between the exporter and the airline and the assessee is only an intermediary. Therefore, it is not a "person responsible" for deduction of tax at source in termsofs.194CoftheAct. ITOvsRama Nand And Co. And Others 163 ITR 702 HP: in this case, the trial court found that payment was made for purchase of timber and therefore the assessee could not be said as contractor. For the similar reason, the persons to whom payments were made could not be consideredassubcontractor.Hence,therewasnoforceinthecomplaintoftheITO. It would also be useful to refer the Board Circular 715 of 1995 wherein following clarifications have beengiven: Question 1 : What would be the scope of an advertising contract for the purpose of section 194C of theAct? Answer : The term "advertising" has not been defined in the Act. During the course of the consideration of the Finance Bill, 1995, the Finance Minister clarified on the floor of the House that the amended provisions of tax deduction at source would apply when a client makes payment to an advertisingagencyandnotwhenanadvertisingagencymakespaymenttothemedia,whichincludes bothprintandelectronicmedia.Thedeductionisrequiredtobemadeattherateof1percent.Itwas further clarified that when an advertising agency makes payments to their models, artistes, 14 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 photographers, etc., the tax shall be deducted at the rate of 5 per cent. as applicable to fees for professionalandtechnicalservicesundersection194JoftheAct. Question 2 : Whether the advertising agency would deduct tax at source out of payments made to themedia? Answer:No.ThepositionhasbeenclarifiedintheanswertoquestionNo.1above. Question 3 : At what rate is tax to be deducted if the advertising agencies give a consolidated bill includingchargesforartworkandotherrelatedjobsaswellaspaymentsmadebythemtomedia? Answer : The deduction will have to be made under section 194C at the rate of 1 per cent. The advertising agencies shall have to deduct tax at source at the rate of 5 per cent. under section 194J while making payments to artistes, actors, models, etc. If payments are made for production of programmes for the purpose of broadcasting and telecasting, these payments will be subjected to TDS at 2 per cent. Even if the production of such programmes is for the purpose of preparing advertisement material, not for immediate advertising, the payment will be subjected to TDS at the rateof2percent. Question 4 : Whether tax is required to be deducted at source on payments made directly to the printmedia/Doordarshanforreleaseofadvertisements? Answer : The payments made directly to print and electronic media would be covered under section 194C as these are in the nature of payments for purposes of advertising. Deduction will have to be made at the rate of 1 per cent. It may, however, be clarified that the payments made directly to DoordarshanmaynotbesubjectedtoTDSasDoordarshan,beingaGovernmentagency,isnotliable toincometax. Question 5: Whether a contract for putting up a hoarding would be covered under section 194C or 194IoftheAct? Answer : The contract for putting up a hoarding is in the nature of advertising contract and provisions of section 194C would be applicable. It may, however, be clarified that if a person has taken a particular space on rent and thereafter sublets the same fully or in part for putting up a hoarding,hewouldbeliabletoTDSundersection194Iandnotundersection194CoftheAct. Question 6: Whether payment under a contract for carriage of goods or passengers by any mode of transport would include payment made to a travel agent for purchase of a ticket or payment made toaclearingandforwardingagentforcarriageofgoods? Answer : The payments made to a travel agent or an airline for purchase of a ticket for travel would not be subjected to tax deduction at source as the privity of the contract is between the individual passenger and the airline/travel agent, notwithstanding the fact that the payment is made by an entity mentioned in section 194C(1). The provisions of section 194C shall, however, apply when a 15 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 plane or a bus or any other mode of transport is chartered by one of the entities mentioned in section194CoftheAct.Asregardspaymentsmadetoclearingandforwardingagentsforcarriageof goods,thesameshallbesubjectedtotaxdeductionatsourceundersection194CoftheAct. Question 7: Whether a travel agent/clearing and forwarding agent would be required to deduct tax atsourcefromthesumpayablebytheagenttoanairlineorothercarrierofgoodsorpassengers? Answer: The travel agent, issuing tickets on behalf of the airlines for travel of individual passengers, would not be required to deduct tax at source as he acts on behalf of the airlines. The position of clearingandforwardingagentsisdifferent.Theyactasindependentcontractors.Anypaymentmade to them would, hence, be liable for deduction of tax at source. They would also be liable to deduct taxatsourcewhilemakingpaymentstoacarrierofgoods. Question 8: Whether section 194C would be attracted in respect of payments made to couriers for carryingdocuments,lettersetc.? Answer: The carriage of documents, letters etc., is in the nature of carriage of goods and, therefore, provisionsofsection194Cwouldbeattractedinrespectofpaymentsmadetothecouriers. Question9: In the case of payments to transporters, can each GR be said to be a separate contract, eventhoughpaymentsforseveralGRsaremadeunderonebill? Answer : Normally, each GR can be said to be a separate contract, if the goods are transported at one time. But if the goods are transported continuously in pursuance of a contract for a specific period or quantity, each GR will not be a separate contract and all GRs relating to that period or quantitywillbeaggregatedforthepurposeoftheTDS. Question10:Whetherthereisanyobligationtodeducttaxatsourceoutofpaymentoffreightwhen thegoodsarereceivedon"freighttopay"basis? Answer : Yes. The provisions of tax deduction at source are applicable irrespective of the actual payment. Question 11 : Whether a contract for catering would include serving food in a restaurant/sale of eatables? Answer: TDS is not required to be made when payment is made for serving food in a restaurant in thenormalcourseofrunningoftherestaurant/cafe. Question12:Whetherpaymenttoarecruitmentagencycanbecoveredbysection194C? Answer : Provisions of section 194C apply to a contract for carrying out any work including supply of labourforcarryingoutanywork.Paymenttorecruitmentagenciesareinthenatureofpaymentsfor 16 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 services rendered. Accordingly, provisions of section 194C shall not apply. The payment will, however,besubjecttoTDSundersection194JoftheAct. Question13:Whethersection194Cwouldcoverpaymentsmadebyacompanytoashareregistrar? Answer : In view of the answer to the earlier question, such payments will not be liable for tax deduction at source under section 194C. But these will be liable to tax deduction at source under section194J. Question14:WhetherFDcommissionandbrokeragecanbecoveredundersection194C? Answer:No. Question 15: Whether section 194C would apply in respect of supply of printed material as per prescribedspecifications? Answer:Yes. Question 16: Whether tax is required to be deducted at source under section 194C or 194J on paymentofcommissiontoexternalpartiesforprocuringordersforthecompany'sproduct? Answer : Rendering of services for procurement of orders is not covered under the provisions of section 194C. However, rendering of such services may involve payment of fees for professional or technicalservices,inwhichcasetaxmaybedeductibleundertheprovisionsofsection194J. Question17:Whetheradvertisementcontractsarecoveredundersection194Conlytotheextentof payment of commission to the person who arranges release of advertisement, etc., or whether deductionistobemadeonthegrossamountincludingbillofmedia? Answer:Taxistobedeductedattherateof1percent.ofthegrossamountofthebill. Question18:Whetherdeductionoftaxisrequiredtobemadeundersection194Cforsponsorshipof debates, seminars and other functions held in colleges, schools and associations with a view to earn publicitythroughdisplayofbanners,etc.,putupbytheorganisers? Answer : The agreement of sponsorship is, in essence, an agreement for carrying out a work of advertisement.Therefore,provisionsofsection194Cshallapply. Question 19 : Whether deduction of tax is required to be made on payments for cost of advertisementsissuedinthesouvenirsbroughtoutbyvariousorganisations? Answer:Yes.

17 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org

 Question 28 : Whether the services of a regular electrician on contract basis will fall in the ambit of technical services to attract the provisions of section 194J of the Act ? In case the services of the electrician are provided by a contractor, whether the provisions of section 194C or 194J would be applicable? Answer: The payments made to an electrician or to a contractor who provides the service of an electrician will be in the nature of payment made in pursuance of a contract for carrying out any work,accordingly,provisionsofsection194Cwillapplyinsuchcases. Question 29 : Whether a maintenance contract including supply of spares would be covered under section194Cor194JoftheAct? Answer : Routine, normal maintenance contracts which include supply of spares will be covered under section 194C. However, where technical services are rendered, the provision of section 194J willapplyinregardtotaxdeductionatsource Question 30 : Whether the deduction of tax at source under section 194C and 194J has to be made out of the gross amount of the bill including reimbursements or excluding reimbursement for actual expenses? Answer : Sections 194C and 194J refer to any sum paid. Obviously, reimbursements cannot be deductedoutofthebillamountforthepurposeoftaxdeductionatsource. Hopethatreaderswouldbebenefitedbytheabovewriteup. Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. Neither the author nor itatonline.org and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal,noncommercialuse)withoutexpresswrittenpermissionofitatonline.org.

18 TheLawofTDSu/s194C:Controversies&Solutions http://www.itatonline.org