TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Rakesh Kumar Garg J.— The Revenue has filed the present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order dated April 12, 2007, passed in I. T. A. No. 340/Chandi/ 2006 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh, for the assessment year 2005-06, raising the following substantial question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in holding that the purchase of preprinted packing material by the assessee was a contract for sale and outside the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Ludhiana, vide his order dated December 27, 2005, allowed the appeal of the respondent and penalty and interest imposed under section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act were deleted. Being not satisfied with the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Branch (B), Chandigarh, vide his order dated April 12, 2007, passed in I. T. A. No. 340/Chandi/2006 for the assessment year 2005-06 dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, that the purchase of pre-printed packing material by the respondent was a contract for sale and outside the purview of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, it was a case of sale and not a contract for carrying out any work. In the case of CIT v. Dabur India Ltd . [2006] 283 ITR 197, the hon'ble Delhi High Court held that printing labels on corrugated boxes did not require any special skill or involve any confidence or secrecy and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the predominant object underlying the contract was one for sale of goods which took the contract out of the purview of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) [2006] 281 ITR 99 (Bom), the court held that if a manufacturer purchases material on his own and manufactures a product as per the requirement of a specific customer, it is a case of sale and not a contract for carrying out any wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
