TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independent application of mind either by the CIT (A) or by the Tribunal – Following Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd.[ 2014 (5) TMI 671 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] – the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration – Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 123 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2014 - Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ And Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,JJ. For the Appellant : Dhananjay Awasthi For the Respondent : Shakeel Ahmad ORDER The appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30 January 2014. The assessment year to which the appeal relates is 2006-07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for technical services had been paid. The Assessing Officer referred to the objects of the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Federation as being to assist, coordinate, supervise and facilitate the working of Cooperative Sugar Factories and to arrange for the manufacture and supply of sugar machinery to cooperative mills and held that the Federation provides financial advice and other services to the factories from time to time. Each factory pays subscription to the Federation to meet expenses on the basis of production of sugar. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the services which were provided were technical services and, accordingly, made a disallowance on the ground that the tax was not deducted at source. The CIT(A), in appeal, merely rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion on whether the provisions of Section 194J were attracted. This being a mixed question of fact and law, we consider it appropriate to restore the proceedings back to the CIT(A). In the present case, the Tribunal has merely followed its earlier decision. On a perusal of the order passed by the CIT (A) dated 19 March 2013 (which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal), it is clear that the CIT (A) has adopted virtually the same reasoning which was commented upon by this Court in its earlier decision while remanding the proceedings back to the CIT (A). In the present case also, there is no independent application of mind either by the CIT (A) or by the Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of this Court dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
