{"id":110888,"date":"1993-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993"},"modified":"2016-09-10T13:35:24","modified_gmt":"2016-09-10T08:05:24","slug":"associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993","title":{"rendered":"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax &#8230; on 23 March, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax &#8230; on 23 March, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2281, \t\t  1993 SCR  (2) 538<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V N.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Venkatachala N. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BIHAR, PATNA AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 2281\t\t  1993 SCR  (2) 538\n 1993 SCC  (2) 556\t  JT 1993 (2)\t411\n 1993 SCALE  (2)161\n\n\nACT:\nIncome tax Act 1961.\nSection\t  194C-Sub-section  (1)-Scope  of-Contract   between\nContrator and specified organisations for carrying out\t\"any\nwork\"-Expression \"any work\" has a wide import and cannot  be\nrestricted  to\tworks  contract-Payment\t to  Contractor\t for\ncarrying out \"any work\"-Sum credited or paid to\t Contractor-\nLiability  of  payer  to  deduct  two  percent\ttax  is\t not\nconfined to Contractor's income component.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant-Company\tissued a letter\t to  its  Contractor\ncontaining the terms and conditions of a contract of loading\npacked\tcement bags from its Packing Plants Into  wagons  or\ntrucks.\t  Under Clause 12 there was a stipulation  that\t the\nContractor  shall be paid a sum for his work at a flat\trate\nof  41\tpaise for each tonne of cement\thandled\t In  Packing\nPlant No.1 and 30 paise for each tonne of cement handled  in\nPacking\t Plant\tNo.2 Clause 13 thereof,\t which\tcontained  a\nrecital\t that  the  rate of loading in Clause  12  had\tbeen\nworked\tout  on the basis of daily basic  wages\t of  Rs.2.35\npaise,\tDA of Rs.1.21 paise and H.R.A of Rs.0.50  paise\t per\nday  per worker, stipulated a terms of reimbursement by\t the\nappellant to the Contractor of the difference in DA over the\namount\tof Rs.1.21 paise and annual increment  etc.  payable\nfrom mouth to month to every worker by him.  The  Contractor\ncarried out his work and the appellant made payments of\t the\nsums  payable to him under the contract.  But no  deductions\nof  tax\t were made under Section 194C(1) of the\t Income\t Tax\nAct, 1961.  The Income Tax Officer served two notices\tOne\nin  respect of assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and\t the\nother for 1974-75 to 1977-78 on the principal officer of the\nappellant-Company to show cause as to why action should\t not\nbe  taken  against  the appellant  for\tnon-compliance\twith\nSection\t 194C(1).The appellant filed a Writ Petition  before\nthe High Court of Patna seeking the quashing of the  notices\nbut the same was dismissed.\nIn  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf  of\t the\nappellant 538\n539\nthat  (1) the 'work' for the carrying of  which the  sum  is\nrequired  to  be  credited to the account of or\t paid  to  a\nContractor   under  Section 194C(1) of, the Act' is  only  a\n'works\tcontract'  and\t hence deduction  \"under  that\tsub-\nsection\t could arise only     to  the extent where  the\t sum\ncredited  to  the account of or paid to\t a  Contractor\tfor,\nexecuting  such works contract' is comprised of the  element\nof Income of the Contractor, (2) that the words 'on  income.\ncomprised  therein ',appearing immediately after the  words'\ndeduct an amount equal to two per cent of such sum as income\ntax in the concluding part of the sub-section must be  taken\nto  mean  the  percentage amount deductible  on\t the  Income\nreceived by the Contractor under the contract and not on the\nsum credited 'to the account of 'or paid to the Contractor.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\nHELD.-\t1.  Them is nothing fit sub-section (1)\t of  Section\n194C  to show that the contract to carry out a work  or\t the\ncontract  to  supply labour to carry out a  work  should  be\nconfined to 'works contract'.There is no mason to curtail or\nto  cut\t down  the  meaning  of\t plain\twords  used  in\t the\nSection.  .Any\twork'  means  any  work\t and  not  &amp;.\"works-\ncontract',  which has a special connotation in the tax\tlaw.\n'Work' envisaged In the sub- section, therefore has. a\twide\nimport\tand covers 'any work' which one or the other of\t the\norganisations  specified in the sub-section can get  carried\nout  through  a Contractor under a contract and\t further  It\nincludes  obtaining by any of such organisations  supply  of\nlabour\tunder a contract with a Contractor for carrying\t out\nits  work which, would have fallen outside the\t'work',\t but\nforks specific inclusion in the sub-section. [544 B-E]\nBrij  Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar etc. v. C.I.  T.,  Haryana,\nHimachal   Pradesh  and\t New  Delhi  [1979]  2\tS.C.R.\t 16,\ndistinguished.\n2.   The  words\t in the\t sub-section  'on  income  comprised\ntherein'  appearing Immediately after the words\t 'deduct  an\namount equal to two per cent of such sum as income tax' from\ntheir purport, cannot be understood as the percentage amount\ndeductible from the income of the Contractor out of the\t sum\ncredited  to his account or paid to him in pursuance of\t the\nco   Moreover\t the  concluding  part\tof  the\t  sub-section\nrequiring  deduction of an amount equal to two per  cent  of\nsuch  sum  as  income-tax by, use of the  words\t 'on  income\ncomprised  therein' makes It obvious that the  amount  equal\nto-two per cent of the sum required to be deducted Is a\n540\ndeducts\t at source.  Hence on the express language  employed\nin  the\t sub-section,  it, is impossible to  hold  that\t the\namount of the two per cent   required to be deducted by\t the\nprayer out of the sum credited to the account of or paid  to\nthe  Contractor has to\tbe confined to his income  component\nout of that sum, [545 D-G]\n2.1. There is also\tnothing in the language of the\tsub-\nsection which permits exclusion of, an amount paid on behalf\nof the organisaiton to the  Contractor according  to,\t the\ntermsand conditions\tofthe\t   contract\t in\nreimbursement, of. the\t amount paidby to workers,from,\nthe sum\t envisaged therein. [545 G-H, 546-A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2860(NT)  of<br \/>\n1979.\n<\/p>\n<p>From  the  Judgment and Order dated 8.3.1979 of\t the,  Patna<br \/>\nHigh  Court  in Civil\t writ jurisdiction case\t No.2909  of<br \/>\n1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.A. Babde, R.F. Nariman and Ms. Kamakshi (For Gagrat &amp; Co.)<br \/>\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dr.  S.\t Narayan P. Parmeshwaran and Manoj  Prasad  for\t the<br \/>\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,<br \/>\nVENKATACHALA,  J.  The\tshort,\tquestion  which\t needs\t our<br \/>\ndecision in this appeal by special leave is whether a person<br \/>\nwho  credits to the account of or pays to a  contractor\t any<br \/>\nsum payable by any of the organisations specified in section<br \/>\n194C(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961\t &#8216;the Act&#8217; for carrying out<br \/>\nany   work including supply of labour for carrying  out\t any<br \/>\nwork) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor\t and<br \/>\nthe specified organisation is liable to deduct two per\tcent<br \/>\nof  such  sum  as income tax as\t required  under  that\tsub-<br \/>\nsection.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  facts &#8216;which, have lad to the need for our decision  on<br \/>\nthe said question are briefly these.  The Associated  Cement<br \/>\nCompany\t Ltd.  the  appellant, issued  a  letter  dated\t 5th<br \/>\nNovember, 1973 to Mr.S.P Nag contractor Jhiakpani Containing<br \/>\nthe  terms  and conditions of a contract of  leading  packed<br \/>\ncement bags,from its Packing Plants.  Nos.1 &amp; 2 into  wagons<br \/>\nor trucks.  Under clause. 12 of those terms and\t conditions,<br \/>\nthere<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">541<\/span><br \/>\nwas  a stipulation that the contractor shall be paid  a\t sum<br \/>\nfor  his work at a flat rate of 41 paise for such  tonne  of<br \/>\ncement\thandled\t in  Packing Plant No.1. and  30  paise\t for each, tonne o<br \/>\nf cement handled in Packing Plant No.2. Clause<br \/>\n13  thereof,  which  contained a recital that  the  rate  of<br \/>\nloading\t in  clause 12 had been worked out on the  basis  of<br \/>\ndaily basic wages of Rs.2.35 paise, D.A. of Rs. 1.21  paise<br \/>\nand H.R.A. of Rs.0.50 paise, per day per worker stipulated a<br \/>\nterm  of reimbursement by the appellant to the contract\t of<br \/>\nthe difference in D.A. over the amount of Rs.1.21 paise\t and<br \/>\nannual\tincrement etc. payable from month to month to  every<br \/>\nworker\tby him as per the Second Wage Board  Recommendation.<br \/>\nAs  the\t contractor carried out his work  according  to\t the<br \/>\nterms and conditions in the contract during the years  1973-<br \/>\n74  and\t 1974-75, the appellant made payments  of  the\tsums<br \/>\npayable to him under clause 12 of the contract and the\tsums<br \/>\nreimbursable  to  him  under  clause  13  thereof  But\t the<br \/>\ndeductions  made  &#8216;under section 194C(1) of the Act  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant  out\tof  the\t sums  paid  or\t reimbursed  to\t the<br \/>\ncontractor fell short of the deductions required to be\tmade<br \/>\nthereunder.  As the appellant took the stand that it was not<br \/>\nliable to deduct any amount under section 194(1), out of the<br \/>\nsums paid on its behalf to the contractor as per clauses<br \/>\n12 &amp; 13 of the contract, the Income Tax\t Officer,  Jamshedpur,<br \/>\nserved\ton the principal officer of the appellant  a  notice<br \/>\ndated 30th March, 1978 to show cause as to why action should<br \/>\nnot  be taken against the appellant under sections  276B(1),<br \/>\n281 and 221 of the Act in respect of assessment years  1973-<br \/>\n74 and 1974-75 for short deductions out of the sums paid  to<br \/>\ncontractor  without  observing the  requirement\t of  section<br \/>\n194C(1)\t  of  the  Act.\t  Another  notice  dated  8th\tMay,<br \/>\n1978.relating to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78  of<br \/>\na  similar nature, was also served on the principal  officer<br \/>\nof the appellant.  The appellant, although impugned both the<br \/>\nsaid notices in a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and<br \/>\n227 of the Constitution before the High Court of  Judicature<br \/>\nat Patna, that Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court<br \/>\nby  its\t order dated 8th March, 1979.\tThe  appellant\thas,<br \/>\ntherefore,  filed this appeal by special leave\tbefore\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  seeking\tthe  quashing of the notices  which  it\t had<br \/>\nunsuccessfully\timpugned before the High Court, in its\tWrit<br \/>\nPetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was argued by Mr. V.A. Bobde, the learned senior  counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for\tthe appellant, that  the  amount  deductible<br \/>\nunder  section\t194C(1)\t out of the  sums  credited  to\t the<br \/>\naccount\t of  or paid to a contractor would arise  only\twhen<br \/>\nsuch  sums are paid, on account of a contractor executing  a<br \/>\nworks  contract,  that\tis,  a\tcontract  which\t produces  a<br \/>\ntangible property.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">542<\/span><\/p>\n<p>According  to him, the &#8216;work&#8217; for the the carrying of  which<br \/>\nthe sum is required to be credited to the account of or paid<br \/>\nto  a contractor under section 194C(1) of the Act is only  a<br \/>\n&#8216;works contract&#8217; and hence deduction under that\t sub-section<br \/>\ncould arise only to the extent where the sum credited to the<br \/>\naccount of or paid to a contractor for executing such &#8216;works<br \/>\ncontract&#8217; is comprised of the element of income (profit)  of<br \/>\nthe  contractor, as held by this Court in Brij\tBhushan\t Lal<br \/>\nParduman  Kumar etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax  Haryana,<br \/>\nHimachal Pradesh and New Delhi-III, [1979] 2 SCR 16 and\t not<br \/>\notherwise.   It was also his argument that the words in\t the<br \/>\nsub-section   &#8216;on  income  comprised   therein&#8217;,   appearing<br \/>\nimmediately  after the words &#8216;deduct an amount equal to\t two<br \/>\nper cent of such sum as income-tax&#8217; found in the  concluding<br \/>\npart  of  that\tsub-section,  must  be\ttaken  to  mean\t the<br \/>\npercentage  amount deductible on the income received by\t the<br \/>\ncontractor under the contract and not on the sum credited to<br \/>\nthe account of or paid to the contractor in pursuance of the<br \/>\ncontract.   These arguments were, however, strongly  refuted<br \/>\nby Dr. S. Narayan, the learned counsel for the Revenue.\t  It<br \/>\nis  how,  the  question mentioned at the  outset  needs\t our<br \/>\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 194C(1)  of  the  Income  Tax\tAct  on\t the  proper<br \/>\nconstruction of which the decision on the aforesaid question<br \/>\nshould necessarily rest, runs thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8216;194C(1).\t  Any person responsible for  paying<br \/>\n\t      any  sum\tto any resident (hereafter  in\tthis<br \/>\n\t      section  referred\t to as the  contractor)\t for<br \/>\n\t      carrying\tout  any work (including  supply  of<br \/>\n\t      labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance<br \/>\n\t      of a contract between the contractor and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   the\t Central  Government  or  any  State<br \/>\n\t\t\t    Government; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   any local authority; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   any corporation established by or  under<br \/>\n\t      a Central, State or Provincial Act; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (d)   any company-, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (e)   any co-operative society-, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (f)   any\t authority, constituted in India  by<br \/>\n\t      or under any  law,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      543<\/span><br \/>\n\t      engaged either for the purpose of dealing with<br \/>\n\t      and   satisfying\t the   need   for    housing<br \/>\n\t      accommodation or for the purpose of  planning,<br \/>\n\t      development  or improvement of  cities,  towns<br \/>\n\t      and villages, or for both; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (g)   any\t  society   registered\t under\t the<br \/>\n\t      Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of  1860)<br \/>\n\t      or under any law corresponding to that Act  in<br \/>\n\t      force in any part of India; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (h)   any trust; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   any\t    University\t  established\t  or<br \/>\n\t      incorporated  by or under a Central, State  or<br \/>\n\t      Provincial Act and an institution declared  to<br \/>\n\t      be  a  University\t under\tsection\t 3  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      University  Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3  of<br \/>\n\t      1956 ,<br \/>\n\t      shall,  at the time of credit of such  sum  to<br \/>\n\t      the  account of the contractor or at the\ttime<br \/>\n\t      of  payment thereof in cash or by issue  of  a<br \/>\n\t      cheque   or  draft  or  by  any  other   mode,<br \/>\n\t      whichever\t is earlier, deduct an amount  equal<br \/>\n\t      to  two per cent of such sum as income-tax  on<br \/>\n\t      income comprised therein.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>No  ambiguity  is  found in the\t language  employed  in\t the<br \/>\nsubsection.   What  is\tcontained  in  the  sub-section,  as<br \/>\nappears\t from  its plain reading and analysis admit  of\t the<br \/>\nfollowing formulations:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (1)   A  contract may be entered into  between<br \/>\n\t      the contractor and   any of the  organisations<br \/>\n\t      specified in the sub-section.<br \/>\n\t      (2)   Contract  in Formulation  1\t could\tnot<br \/>\n\t      only be for carrying out any work but also for<br \/>\n\t      supply of labour for carrying out any work.<br \/>\n\t      (3)   Any\t person responsible for\t paying\t any<br \/>\n\t      sum  to  a  contractor  in  pursuance  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      contract in Formulations 1 and 2, could credit<br \/>\n\t      that sum to his account or make its payment to<br \/>\n\t      him in any other manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (4)   But,  when\tthe person  referred  to  in<br \/>\n\t      Formulation-3 either credits the sum  referred<br \/>\n\t      to therein to the account<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      544<\/span><br \/>\n\t      of  or  pays it to the  contractor,  he  shall<br \/>\n\t      deduct out of that sum an amount equal to\t two<br \/>\n\t      per  cent\t as income-tax on  income  comprised<br \/>\n\t      therein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Thus,  when  the percentage amount required to\tbe  deducted<br \/>\nunder  the sub-section as income-tax is on the sum  credited<br \/>\nto the account of or paid to a contractor in pursuance of  a<br \/>\ncontract  for  carrying out a work or supplying\t labour\t for<br \/>\ncarrying  out a work, of any of the organisations  specified<br \/>\ntherein,  there\t is nothing in the sub-section\twhich  could<br \/>\nmake  us hold that the contract to carry out a work  or\t the<br \/>\ncontract  to  supply labour to carry out a  work  should  be<br \/>\nconfined to &#8216;works contract&#8217; as was argued on behalf of\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   We see no reason to curtail or to cut down\t the<br \/>\nmeaning\t of  plain words used in the  Section.\t &#8220;Any  work&#8221;<br \/>\nmeans  any  work  and not a &#8216;works-contract&#8221;,  which  has  a<br \/>\nspecial\t connotation  in the tax law.  Indeed, in  the\tsub-<br \/>\nsection,  the &#8216;work&#8217; referred to therein expressly  includes<br \/>\nsupply\tof  labour  to\tcarry out a work.   It\tis  a  clear<br \/>\nindication of legislature that the &#8216;work&#8217; in sub-section  is<br \/>\nnot  intended  to  be confined to or  restricted  to  &#8216;works<br \/>\ncontract&#8217;.  &#8216;Work&#8217; envisaged in the sub-section,  therefore,<br \/>\nhas wide import and covers &#8216;any work&#8217; which one or the other<br \/>\nof  the organisations specified in the sub-section  can\t get<br \/>\ncarried\t out  through  a contractor  under  a  contract\t and<br \/>\nfurther\t it includes obtaining by any of such  organisations<br \/>\nsupply\tof  labour under a contract with  a  contractor\t for<br \/>\ncarrying  out its work which, would have fallen outside\t the<br \/>\n&#8216;work&#8217;, but for its specific inclusion in the sub-section.<br \/>\nIn  Brij Bhushan (supra) this Court was concerned  with\t the<br \/>\nquestion  whether  the\tcost of materials  supplied  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment for being used in execution of works is liable to<br \/>\nbe  taken into consideration while estimating the income  or<br \/>\nprofits of a contractor.  That question was answered by this<br \/>\nCourt, thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;It  is  true  that ordinarily  when  a  works<br \/>\n\t      contract\tis  put through or  completed  by  a<br \/>\n\t      contractor  the income or profits\t derived  by<br \/>\n\t      the   contractor\t from\tsuch   contract\t  is<br \/>\n\t      determined  on the value of the contract as  a<br \/>\n\t      whole and cannot be determined by\t considering<br \/>\n\t      several  items that go to form such  value  of<br \/>\n\t      the  contract  but in our view  where  certain<br \/>\n\t      stores\/material is supplied at fixed rates  by<br \/>\n\t      the  Department to the Contractor\t solely\t for<br \/>\n\t      being used or<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      545<\/span><br \/>\n\t      fixed or incorporated in the works  undertaken<br \/>\n\t      on  terms and conditions mentioned above,\t the<br \/>\n\t      real total value of the entire contract  would<br \/>\n\t      be   the\t value\tminus  the  cost   of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      stores\/material so supplied.  Therefore, since<br \/>\n\t      no  element  of  profit was  involved  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      turnover\t represented   by   the\t  cost\t  of<br \/>\n\t      stores\/material supplied by the M.E.S. to\t the<br \/>\n\t      assessee firms, the income or profits  derived<br \/>\n\t      by the assessee firms from such contracts will<br \/>\n\t      have  to\tbe determined on the  basis  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      value of the contracts represented by the cash<br \/>\n\t      payments\treceived by the assessee firms\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      the M.E.S. Department exclusive to the cost of<br \/>\n\t      the material&#8217;\/stores received for being  used,<br \/>\n\t      fixed or incorporated in the works  undertaken<br \/>\n\t      by them.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  above decision cannot be of any help to  the  appellant<br \/>\nfor  it\t does  not  lay\t down  that  the  percentage  amount<br \/>\ndeductible under section 194C(1) should be out of the income<br \/>\nof  the\t contractor  from the sum or sums  credited  to\t the<br \/>\naccount of or paid to him.  The words in the sub-section &#8216;on<br \/>\nincome\tcomprised therein&#8217; appearing immediately  after\t the<br \/>\nwords deduct an amount equal to two per cent of such sum  as<br \/>\nincome-tax&#8217; from their purport, cannot be understood as\t the<br \/>\npercentage   amount  deductible\t from  the  income  of\t the<br \/>\ncontractor out of the sum credited to his account or paid to<br \/>\nhim in pursuance of the contract.  Moreover, the  concluding<br \/>\npart  of  the sub-section requiring deduction of  an  amount<br \/>\nequal  to two per cent of such sum as income-tax, by use  of<br \/>\nthe  words  &#8216;on income comprised therein&#8217; makes\t it  obvious<br \/>\nthat the amount equal to two per cent of the sum required to<br \/>\nbe deducted is a deduction at source.  Indeed, it is neither<br \/>\npossible nor permissible to the payer to determine what part<br \/>\nof the amount paid by him to the contractor constitutes\t the<br \/>\nincome of the latter.  It is not also possible to think that<br \/>\nthe  Parliamer&#8217; could have intended to cast such  impossible<br \/>\nburden\tupon the payer nor could it be attributed  with\t the<br \/>\nintention  of  enacting such an impractical  and  unworkable<br \/>\nprovision.   Hence, on the express language employed in\t the<br \/>\nsub-section, it is impossible to hold that the amount of two<br \/>\nper cent required to be deducted by the payer out of the sum<br \/>\ncredited to the account of or paid to the contractor has  to<br \/>\nbe confined to his income component, out of that sum.  There<br \/>\nis  also  nothing in the language of the  sub-section  which<br \/>\npermits\t exclusion  of\tan  amount paid\t on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nOrganisation to the contractor according to clause 13 of the<br \/>\nterms and conditions of the contract in reimbursement of the<br \/>\namount<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">546<\/span><br \/>\npaid  by him to workers, from the sum envisaged therein,  as<br \/>\nwas suggested on behalf of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>For  the  foregoing reasons, our decision  on  the  question<br \/>\nunder  consideration,  is  held in the\taffirmative  and  in<br \/>\nfavour of the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed  directing<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tto  pay the costs of the  respondent   the<br \/>\nRevenue in this appeal.\t Advocate&#8217;s fee is fixed at Rs-3000.\n<\/p>\n<pre>T.N.A.\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">547<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax &#8230; on 23 March, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2281, 1993 SCR (2) 538 Author: V N. Bench: Venkatachala N. (J) PETITIONER: ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BIHAR, PATNA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1993 BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110888","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 23 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 23 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-10T08:05:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax &#8230; on 23 March, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T08:05:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2268,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993\",\"name\":\"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 23 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T08:05:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax &#8230; on 23 March, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 23 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 23 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-10T08:05:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax &#8230; on 23 March, 1993","datePublished":"1993-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T08:05:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993"},"wordCount":2268,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993","name":"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 23 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T08:05:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/associated-cement-company-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-23-march-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax &#8230; on 23 March, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110888","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110888"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110888\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}