9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee relates to the assessment year 2005-2006. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of purchasing jute bags from Calcutta and selling them. 2. The first issue in the appeal covered by the ground nos.1 to 7 is that the departmental authorities are not justified in disallowing the transport charges of ₹ 1,72,200/- paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the assessee that the transporters were engaged by agents in Calcutta and the assessee was merely paying the transport charges to them and that there was no transport contract between the assessee and the transporters named above. It was therefore submitted that there was no liability to deduct tax under Section 194C. We find that the contention is correct. At page 9 of the paper book t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t show that there was any contract for transport between the assessee and the transporters. These are single trips. Circular No.715 dated 8-8-1995 issued by the CBDT shows that each goods receipt can be considered to be a separate contract if the goods are transported at one time. This requirement is satisfied as can be seen from the bills issued by the transporters. The order of the Mumbai Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deposits made by Jitendra R. Patel (individual). The AO has taken the view that the assessee failed to deduct tax from the interest payment as required by Section 194A and therefore the interest cannot be allowed as a deduction, having regard to the prohibition contained in section 40(a)(ia). The assessee's contention before us is that Jitendra Patel is a partner in the assessee firm as karta o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
