TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAVERI AND AND MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER MR JP SHAH, ADVOCATE, MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Since, the issue involved in both these appeals is common, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2006 is filed by Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyoug Sahakari Mandli Ltd., seeking to challenge the order of the learned ITAT, Surat (for short, the Tribunal ), Dated : 31.08.2005, rendered in ITA No.3691/Ahd/2004 for the A.Y. 2003-04, whereas, Tax Appeal No. 440 of 2006 is preferred by Shree Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyoug Sahakari Mandli Ltd., seeking to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the Tribunal committed grave error in passing the impugned orders, as it failed to appreciate the material on record as well as the provisions of Section 194C of the Act in its proper perspective. Mr. Shah, submitted that the assesses purchased sugarcanes from the farmers, on condition that they shall supply the same at the factory gate and the same being a part of sale transaction, they are not required to deduct TDS. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shah placed reliance on a decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) VS. KRISHAK BHARTI CO-OPERATIVE LTD. , [2012] 349 ITR 68 (Guj). 7. As against this, Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate for the respondent-Revenue, supported the orders passed by the Tribunal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gas from the seller s premises to the buyer s consumption point, and therefore, they held that the assessee, therein, was required to deduct TDS. However, this Court, in that case, held that to transport the gas was a part of sale transaction, and therefore, the assessee, therein, was not required to deduct TDS. In our view, therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT (TDS) VS. KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. (Supra) applies in full force to the facts of this case. The aforesaid provision would apply to the person, who had paid any sum, and the respondent has not paid any charges. The case of the assessee in Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2006 is identical, and hence, the authorities below grossly erred in interpreting the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
