THE ASST. CIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. BEST INDIA YOBACCO SUPPLIERS PVT.LTD,, GUNTUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.238/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Acit Vs. M/S Best India Tobacco Circle-1(1) Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Guntur D.No.9-11-1, Kothapet Guntur [Pan :Aaacb9184B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co.No.59/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.238/Viz/2017) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) M/S Best India Tobacco Acit Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1) D.No.9-11-1, Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaacb9184B]

section 194C(6) of the Act, since any payment made to the contractor during the course of business of plying, hiring or leasing of goods shall not be subjected to TDS. Accordingly out of the total expenditure, the payments made towards local transport charges 5 M/s Best India Tobacco Supplirs Pvt. Ltd., Guntur of Rs.33,76,446/- was deleted from

DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. CONZUG LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The short dispute is whether the amount paid by the appellant to CONCOR towards railway freight attracts the provisions of Section 194C of the Act or not. In this regard, it is pertinent to consider the relevant provisions of Section 194C of the Act, which are extracted as under: 194C. Payment

GHANSHYAM SHARMA,,RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.461/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The Principal Commissioner Jakhal Vill & Post Of Income Tax-1 Jhunjhunu District Visakhapatnam Rajasthan – 333 305 [Pan :Abups5701R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2018

194C and accordingly disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is unwarranted. Ld.AR also submitted that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of I.T.Act is applicable in the assessee’s case, hence no disallowance is warranted. Accordingly requested to set aside the order of 263 and restore the assessment order. 5. On the other hand, Ld.DR supported the orders

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

194C of the Act for Rs.48,70,809/- and Rs.7,99,730/- from M/s. Delta Paper Mills Ltd., and M/s.Waltair Traders respectively. Ld. AO observed that assessee has not offered income of Rs.56,70,539/- and therefore added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further on going through the 26AS, Ld. AO observed that an amount

TULASI SEEDS PVT.,LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The revenue’s case is that the assessee had entered into works contract with the organizers, hence TDS required to be made u/s 194C of the Act. The AO is also of the view that it is a composite supply contract, but not purchase and sale

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PVT,. LTD.,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The revenue’s case is that the assessee had entered into works contract with the organizers, hence TDS required to be made u/s 194C of the Act. The AO is also of the view that it is a composite supply contract, but not purchase and sale

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S TULASI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The revenue’s case is that the assessee had entered into works contract with the organizers, hence TDS required to be made u/s 194C of the Act. The AO is also of the view that it is a composite supply contract, but not purchase and sale

TULASI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The revenue’s case is that the assessee had entered into works contract with the organizers, hence TDS required to be made u/s 194C of the Act. The AO is also of the view that it is a composite supply contract, but not purchase and sale

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the CIT(C), Vijayawada has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A to the 40(a)(ia). While giving effect

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the CIT(C), Vijayawada has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A to the 40(a)(ia). While giving effect

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the CIT(C), Vijayawada has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A to the 40(a)(ia). While giving effect

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the CIT(C), Vijayawada has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A to the 40(a)(ia). While giving effect

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the CIT(C), Vijayawada has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A to the 40(a)(ia). While giving effect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

194C and 195 will not apply. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that since these payments are made to various foreign shipping companies, section 194I has no application. He therefore pleaded that the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 194I of the Act thereby disallowing the expenditure U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

194C and 195 will not apply. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that since these payments are made to various foreign shipping companies, section 194I has no application. He therefore pleaded that the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 194I of the Act thereby disallowing the expenditure U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

194C and 195 will not apply. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that since these payments are made to various foreign shipping companies, section 194I has no application. He therefore pleaded that the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 194I of the Act thereby disallowing the expenditure U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further

HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

194C and 195 will not apply. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that since these payments are made to various foreign shipping companies, section 194I has no application. He therefore pleaded that the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 194I of the Act thereby disallowing the expenditure U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

194C and 195 will not apply. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that since these payments are made to various foreign shipping companies, section 194I has no application. He therefore pleaded that the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 194I of the Act thereby disallowing the expenditure U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

194C of the Act @ 2%. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly considered the agreement and concluded that it is in the nature of engineering services which attracts the provisions of section 194J of the Act and the tax needs to be deducted @ 10%. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed