JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. These appeals are admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that in respect of 'Port Charges' provisions of Section 194C are applicable and not 194J, though as per the AO the services provided by the C & F agents were in the nature of 'professional services'?" 1.1 By consent of the parties, these appeals are taken up for final hearing and are decided today. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' in ITA No. 1542, 1543, 1544 & 1545/ Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively, these appeals are preferred. 3. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing business of waste products, edible oil refining, cotton spinning, maize starch and its derivatives. During the course of survey operation, it was found that the company has made sales of various items such as cotton waste, maize husk and de-oiled cake for which neither any TCS was made nor any declaration in Form No. 27C was filed. Accordingly, order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) & 206C(6A)/206(7) was passed by the DCIT, TDS Ahmedabad holding that the said items were 'scrap' within the meaning of Section 206C of the Act. 3.1 Further during the course of post survey proceedings it was seen by the A.O that the assessee company has made payments under the head 'Port Charges' to various Clearing and Forwarding Agents and TDS was made u/s. 194C instead of TDS u/s. 194J as the nature of payment was of professional service. Accordingly, default for short deduction was determined by the A.O in the order made u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) & 206C(6A)/206(7) of the Act. 3.2 The matter was carried before the CIT(A) by assessee and the CIT(A) allowed appeals of the assessee. Order of the CIT(A) was challenged by the revenue before the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) and thereby dismissed appeals of the revenue. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 4. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 4. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the revenue submitted that the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. He submitted that on going through the facts of the case it transpires that C & F agent provides services from receiving goods from factory to making payment of warfare, demurrage, port charges etc. on behalf of the principal. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to take cognizance of the fact that just something has value of its own does not make it qualified to assume the status of 'by product' and also failed to appreciate the fact that C & F agents require knowledge of Customs Act and other related laws and work being done by them are of highly specialized work which otherwise cannot be done by ordinary contractor. 5. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing with Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee submitted that as per Circular No. 715 issued by the CBDT, the position of carrying and forwarding agents is that of contractor and hence Section 194C is applicable on this. He submitted that such port charges include payments to transporters, fumigator, shipping charges, payments to C & F agents for reimbursement of expenses and their agency charges. He submitted that TDS is deducted by assessee u/s. 194C on all such payments including reimbursement even though the same is not required to be subjected to provision of TDS. In support of his submissions, Mr. Soparkar has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in, [2013] 29 taxmann.com 313 (Delhi). 6. We have heard learned advocates for both the sides including the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as well as CIT(A). In support of his submissions, Mr. Soparkar has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in, [2013] 29 taxmann.com 313 (Delhi). 6. We have heard learned advocates for both the sides including the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as well as CIT(A). The CIT(A) following the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Navine Fluorine International Limited v. ACIT reported in 14 ITR 481 (Ahmedabad) held that deoiled cake, raw cotton waste and maize husk are not in the nature of scrap within the meaning of provisions of Section 206C of the Act and directed the A.O to delete the demand on this issue. The CIT(A) observed that C & F agents were nowhere remotely indicated in the explanation to Section 194J of the Act and are in the nature of independent contractors and accordingly directed the A.O to delete the demand on this issue. 6.1 It shall be relevant to peruse Section 194J of the Act, more particularly the explanation, clause (a) which defines professional services and the same reads as under: "(a) 'professional services' means services rendered by a person in the course of carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or the profession of accountancy or technical consultancy or interior decoration or advertising or such other profession as is notified by the Board for the purposes of Section 44AA or of this Section." 6.2 From the definition reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that C & F agents are nowhere remotely indicated in the explanation to Section 194J of the Act. In the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), the Court has held that tax is deductible under Section 194C in relation to warehousing charges paid to clearing and forwarding agents. We find that the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal has not committed any error in deleting the deduction of tax at source by applying provisions of Section 194 Cinstead of 194J of the Act. 7. In view of the above, the question raised for consideration in the present appeals are answered in favour of the assessee and consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT is confirmed. Hence, the present Tax Appeals are dismissed. No costs.