THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S SRI SAI ENGINEERING & DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the issue of TDS applicability was not examined by the lower authorities due to a previous ruling. Considering the Supreme Court's decision in Palam Gas Service, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) for transportation and pit filling charges. The assessee had not deducted TDS on these payments, which exceeded Rs. 50,000 per recipient.
What were the issues?
Whether TDS was required to be deducted on transportation and pit filling charges, and consequently, whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT139 citing20 Taxmann.com 244 · 2012
- Palam Gas Service v. CIT110 citing81 Taxmann.com 43 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश /O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member:
This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Vijayawada vide
AppealNo.275/CIT(A)/VJA/2011-12 dated 30.11.2012 and cross objections
by the assessee for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10.
In this case, the assessee filed the appeal, which was decided by this
Tribunal vide order in ITA No. 39/VIZ/2013, dated 06.01.2017. In the
order dated 06.01.2017, the coordinate bench of ITAT has decided the
issue with regard to the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), following the decision
of special bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transporters Vs. ACIT
[2012] 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakhapatnam). Subsequently, the revenue
has filed Miscellaneous Application No.14/Viz/2018 stating that in view of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Palam Gas Service vs.
CIT (81 taxmann.com 43) requested to recall the order for re-adjudication.
Accordingly Ground No.9, 10 and 11 which are related the issue of
disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) are recalled to decide the issue afresh on merits.
Ground Nos.9,10,11 of revenue’s appeal reads as under :
Grounds 9,10 and 11:
The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia)
3 I.T.A. No.39/Viz/2013 and CO No.58/Viz/2013 M/s Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vijayawada
towards transportation charges and fit filling charges basing on ITAT’s decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, which was stayed by the Hon’ble A.P.High Court. 10. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming that no TDS is required even though the payment to each vehicle exceeds Rs.50,000/- and also in respect of payment made to a person exceeding Rs.50,000/- in a year. 11. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions : a. Shree Choudhary Transport Company Vs. ITO [225 CTR (Raj)] 125 2009] b. Dey’s Medical (U.0.) (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.[(2009) 316 ITR 445] c. Marc. Signage Vs. ITO 2010-TIOL-KOL d. Matrix Glass & Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2011-TIOL-181-ITAT-KOL e. M/s Parnika Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-116(3), Hyderabad ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad in ITA No.1081/Hyd/09, dt.16.07.2010.
Ground No.9, 10 and 11 are related to the addition made by the AO in
respect of transportation charges Rs.74,97,500/- and Pit filling charges of
Rs.20,41,800/-. Above payments were made in excess of Rs.50,000/- in
each case, though the assessee tax required to deduct the tax at source u/s
194C of the Act, the assessee failed to deduct the same, hence, the AO
disallowed the sum of Rs.74,97,500/- representing transportation charges
and Rs.20,41,800/- relating to Pit filling charges u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT,
special bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Services Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. ACIT[2012] 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakhapatnam) allowed the
appeal of the assessee.
4 I.T.A. No.39/Viz/2013 and CO No.58/Viz/2013 M/s Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vijayawada
Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) , the revenue filed appeal before
the Tribunal and the ITAT also allowed the appeal of the assessee following
the decision of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Services Ltd. since no part
of expenditure was outstanding as at the end of the year.
Against the order of the ITAT, the revenue filed miscellaneous
application in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of
Palam Gas Services, wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the
order of the Merilyn Shipping and Transport Services Ltd.,
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on
record. We observed that a sum of Rs.74,97,500/- was outstanding as at
the end of the year in respect of transportation charges and a sum of
Rs.20,41,800/- in respect of Pit filling charges. According to the assessee,
the payments were made to more number of operators through their group
leader in lump sum ,so, the amount payable/paid by them to individual
operators does not exceed Rs.50000/-. Thus, the assessee argued that the
there is no case for making deduction u/s 194C of the act and consequent
disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. Similarly in respect of pit filling
charges also the assessee’s argued that the payment was made to mestry
towards the labour payments and there is no application of 194C of the Act.
Ld.CIT(A) did not examine the issue with regard to application of
5 I.T.A. No.39/Viz/2013 and CO No.58/Viz/2013 M/s Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vijayawada
provisions of TDS to the payments made, since, there was no outstanding as at the end of year in view of the special bench judgment. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the issue should be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) to examine whether the payments in question attract the provisions of TDS and consequent application of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and decide the issue afresh on merits keeping in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service Ltd. Both the parties have conceded to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) should allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open Court on this 6th day of Feb., 2019 Sd/- sd/- (िी.दुगााराि) (डड.एस. सुन्दरससंह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBERऱेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ववशधखधपटणम /Visakhapatnam दििधंक /Dated : 06.02.2019 L.Rama, SPS
6 I.T.A. No.39/Viz/2013 and CO No.58/Viz/2013 M/s Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vijayawada
आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/ TheAssessee-M/s Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, #54-18-26, 2nd Line, LIC Colony, Vijayawada 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue –(i) Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijayawada 3. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada 4. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),Vijayawada 5. तिभागीयप्रतितिति, आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, तिशाखािटणम/DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गार्डफ़ाईि / Guard file
आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jai Ram Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026