Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (6) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... TAX APPEAL NO. 1625 of 2008 With TAX APPEAL NO. 2397 of 2009 With TAX APPEAL NO. 759 of 2010 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1627 of 2008 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1628 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the following impugned orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench Special Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), the revenue has preferred the following appeals: Tax Appeal No. Order date ITA No. Assessment Year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner on account of payment made towards transport and harvesting charges in cash amounting to ₹ 15,25,28,958/-? Tax Appeal No. 1627 of 2008 Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are not attracted in respect of payments made by the assessee to Mukamams and Transporters who are members farmers of the Zone Samiti? Tax Appeal No. 1628 of 2008 Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are not attracted in respect of payments made by the assessee to Mukamams and Transporters who a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee were a part of sale transaction and therefore the assessee shall not be liable to deduct TDS. 5. Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the revenue could not dispute the same. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and the question posed for consideration before us reproduced hereinabove and considering the decision of the this Court in Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2006 and allied matter, the question, which is raised in the present appeals is required to be answered in favour of the assessees. The relevant portion of the decision dated 01.12.2014 reads as under: 9. Heard, learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record as well .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 provisions of law, and therefore, the grounds urged by the appellant find favour with us. 10. In the case on hand, the supply of sugarcanes at the gates of factories of the respective assesses was a part of sale transaction, and therefore, we are of the opinion that the assesses are not liable to deduct TDS. In view of the above discussion, the decisions relied on by Mr. Mehta shall not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, the present appeals deserve to be allowed. 6.1 The T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates