Commissioner of Income Tax vs Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd.

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dt. 24th Aug., 2007 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4390/Del/2004 relating to the asst. yr. 2003-04.

The sole issue for consideration is whether the transactions between the assessee and its suppliers are in the nature of works contract or sale of goods simplicitor this issue arises in the backed of Section 194C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act''). If the nature of the transaction is that of a works contract, the tax would have had to be deducted at source u/s 194C of the said Act. Since the assessee did not do so, it would then be an assessee-in-default in view of the provisions of Section 201(1) of the said Act and would also be liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) thereof. We note that the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have both returned finding of fact to the effect that the dealings between the assessee and its suppliers were on principal to principal basis and did not amount to transactions in the nature of works contract.

The Tribunal also noted that the present case was predominantly one of a contract of sale packing material and was distinguishable from the feels of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Anandam Viswanathan, . Thus, on facts, the Tribunal has concluded, that the provisions of Section 194C would not be applicable because the transactions were not in" the nature of works contract. We also have support of the similar decisions in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dabur India Ltd., and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reebok India Co., .

No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.