Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd on 14 March, 2014
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sonia Gokani
O/OJMCA/9/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9 of 2014
In TAX APPEAL NO. 555 of 2013
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)....Applicant(s)
Versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA
GOKANI
Date : 14/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
1. The present applicant is the original appellant, who while preferring an appeal, raised the following questions of law:
"(A) Whether on the facts & in law the ITAT was right in holding the payment of uniform allowance, washing charges, etc. to the employees by the assessee was liable for Page 1 of 5 O/OJMCA/9/2014 ORDER FBT and by holding so it did not consider the fact that the payment of uniform allowance was nothing but additional salary paid in the form of an allowance within the meaning of section 17(1)(iv) attracting the TDS provisions of section 192 of the I.T. Act ?
(B) Whether on facts & in law the ITAT was right in holding the payment of conveyance maintenance reimbursement expenditure (CMRE), to the employees by the assessee was liable for fringe benefit tax (FBT) and by holding so, it overlooked the fact that the payment of CMRE was nothing but additional salary paid in the form of an allowance within the meaning of section 17(1)(iv) attracting the TDS provisions of sec. 192 of the I.T. Act ?
(C) Whether on facts & in law the ITAT was right in holding that payments to contractors for Annual Maintenance Contract for EPINET, VRC hardware, PSDM Sub System, Acs, Lifts & UPS facility was work contract covered by the Provisions of Section 194C of the Act and not as Technical and Professional fees covered under section 194J of the I.T. Act ?
(D) Whether on facts & in law the ITAT
Page 2 of 5
O/OJMCA/9/2014 ORDER
was right in holding the payment to contractors for hiring of vehicles, plant & equipments were work contract covered u/s 194C of the Act and not as Rent covered u/s 194I of the Act ?
(E) Whether on the facts & in law the ITAT was right in holding that uniform allowances etc. ground (i) above will be governed by the provisions of section 17(2)
(vi) though the same is in respect of the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares and hence altogether different from the issue u/s 17(1)(iv) in the appellant's case ?"
2. This Court while rendering the decision on August 12, 2013, dealt with question "B" only.
3. By preferring the present application, it is urged inter alia that although the total substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were five in number, the Court dealt with question "B" only and the rest of the substantial questions are left out and, therefore, by way of present application, it is urged that the Court may render decision on all other issues. Page 3 of 5
O/OJMCA/9/2014 ORDER
4. It is to be noted from the record, so also from the submissions made by the both the sides that at the time of hearing of the concerned Tax Appeal, both the sides had concurred before the Court that the only substantial question that has arisen is the question "B" for the Court to render decision and accordingly, the said Tax Appeal has been disposed of giving the findings and the reasons on such issue.
5. With regard to question "D" of hiring of vehicles, plant and equipments, such issue was set aside by the Tribunal. Though the question was raised, such question was remitted to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal by setting aside the findings of the original authority. Therefore, such question though had arisen from the decision of the Tribunal, the same was not to be adjudicated upon in wake of such remand and, therefore, the only question that deserved consideration was question "B". At the costs of ingemination, it is to be stated that the other questions did not arise in the said Tax Appeal Page 4 of 5 O/OJMCA/9/2014 ORDER and that fact is also admitted by the learned counsel for the applicantoriginalappellant.
6. Resultantly, this application for recall/review deserves no consideration and, therefore, the same is rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 5 of 5