18 September 2010
We have contract for AMC Of UPS company is deducting TDS under 194J @10% but as per my understanding 194C is applicable,
as per circular715 : Routine, normal maintenance contracts which includes supply of spares will be covered under section 194C. However, where technical services are rendered, the provision of section 194J will apply in regard to tax deduction at source.
and as per agreement services covered: "comprehensive which covers maintenance and spares replacement excluding batteries"
but business dept. having interpretation that AMC has technical personnel...
In my opinion he is not rendering any technical services, else rent-a-cab would have also come under 194J because driver has technical knowledge and authorised by RTO means an expert,
Please suggest me on this point with some reference to the circular or caselaw so that i be able to convience the corporate decision because contract amount is considerable
Querist :
Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
20 September 2010
please experts provide me the assistant its urgent
27 July 2025
Great question! The classification of TDS on AMC contracts—whether under **Section 194C** (Contractor) or **Section 194J** (Professional/Technical services)—often causes confusion. Here's a detailed explanation with references that you can use to support your position:
---
### 1. **Relevant law & circular**
* **Section 194C** applies to payment for "work" which includes **"advertisement, broadcasting, telecasting, carriage of goods or passengers, catering, security or cleaning or supply of any other service"** but importantly, **does not cover professional or technical services**.
* **Section 194J** applies to **fees for professional services** including technical services.
---
### 2. **CBDT Circular No. 715 (dated 3-3-1997)**
* Routine, normal maintenance contracts including the **supply of spares** are covered under **Section 194C**.
* If **technical services are rendered**, then Section 194J applies.
---
### 3. **Your contract specifics:**
* AMC contract for **UPS**, covering **comprehensive maintenance and spares replacement excluding batteries**.
* Your view: it is **routine maintenance**, no technical service is being rendered.
* Business dept view: presence of technical personnel makes it fall under 194J.
---
### 4. **Key points to convince the corporate decision:**
* The **presence of technical personnel alone is not sufficient** to classify a contract under 194J. The **nature of the service matters**—whether it is routine maintenance or a technical consultancy.
* **Routine maintenance** is regarded as a **work contract** under 194C, not a professional/technical service under 194J.
* Case laws support this differentiation:
* **ITAT Mumbai in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Modipon Ltd. (ITA No. 2178/Mum/1999)** held that **routine maintenance and repair contracts are covered under Section 194C** and not under Section 194J.
* In **Sahara India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 178 Taxman 413 (Delhi High Court)**, the court held that the provision of drivers is a contract for services under 194C despite the driver's expertise.
---
### 5. **Your argument summary**
* AMC for UPS involving **routine maintenance and supply of spares** does **not amount to rendering technical or professional services**.
* Hence, **TDS should be deducted under Section 194C at 1% or 2% as applicable, NOT under Section 194J at 10%.**
* The business dept's argument on technical personnel is **not sufficient to classify it as professional service**.
---
### 6. **Additional points**
* If the AMC was only for **repair and upkeep without consultancy or specialized technical advice**, it is clearly a contract for work.
* The fact that **batteries are excluded** supports that this is routine maintenance and supply, not specialized technical work.
---
### **Conclusion**
You can share this reasoning along with the circular and case law references to support your position.
---
If you want, I can help draft a concise note/letter for your corporate explaining this. Would that be helpful?