TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A), XI, Kolkata dated 15.09.2005 for the assessment year 2004-2005. 2. The first ground raised in this appeal by the assessee reads as under: That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that purchase of footwear with specified logo Khadim amounting to ₹ 7.90 crores falls under the purview of section 194C of the Act and that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, he treated the assessee to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 194C of the Act amounting to ₹ 91,91,301/- alone with interest u/s. 201(1) of the Act thereon amounting to ₹ 11,38,956/-. 4. On appeal the CIT(A) found that the purchase amounting to ₹ 38.39 crores was without the logo of the assessee and, therefore, he held that the assessee was not liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he footwear purchased by the assessee, the logo of the assessee was affixed, it would not amount to works contract. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : - CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd. 198 CTR 375 (Del) Wadilal Dairy International Ltd. vs. ACIT 81 ITD 238 (Pune) DCIT vs. Reebok India Company 100 TTJ 976 5. Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nternational Ltd. (supra) and held that the purchase of packing material as per assessee's specification on which printing was also done by the manufacturer of packing material is not work contract within the meaning of Sec. 194c. In the case of Reebok India Company (supra) the ITAT Delhi F Bench came to a conclusion that - Outsourcing of manufacture of goods, by the assessee to the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
