Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Sikar & Jhunjhnu Zila Dughdh Utpadak ... vs Assessee on 4 March, 2016
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,
JAIPUR
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 82 to 86/JP/2015
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2010-11
Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh cuke Assistant Commissioner of
Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Vs. Income Tax (TDS),
N.H.-11, P.O.- Palsana, Sikar. Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. TAN: JPRSO 5808 F
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 104 to 108/JP/2015
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2010-11
Assistant Commissioner of cuke Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh
Income Tax (TDS), Vs. Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.,
Jaipur. N.H.-11, P.O.- Palsana, Sikar.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. TAN: JPRSO 5808 F
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 87/JP/2015
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12
Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh cuke Assistant Commissioner of
Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Vs. Income Tax,
N.H.-11, P.O.- Palsana, Sikar. Sikar.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. TAN: JPRSO 5808 F
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
2 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 &
96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh
Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS)
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 96/JP/2015
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12
Assistant Commissioner of cuke Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh
Income Tax, Vs. Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.,
Sikar. N.H.-11, P.O.- Palsana, Sikar.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. TAN: JPRSO 5808 F
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Raj Mehra (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02/03/2016
mn~?kks'k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 04/03/2016
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BENCH ITA Nos. 82 to 86/JP/2015 filed by the assessee and ITA No. 104 to 108/JP/2015 filed by the revenue arise against the order dated 24/11/2014 of the ld CIT(A)-III, Jaipur for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11. ITA No. 87/JP/2015 filed by the assessee and cross appeal being ITA No. 96/JP/2015 filed by the revenue are against the order dated 20/11/2014 passed by the ld CIT(A)-III, Jaipur for A.Y. 2011-12. The effective grounds of all the appeals are as under:-
Grounds of ITA No. 82/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2006-07) (Assessee's appeal) 3 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) "1 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that payment of cess made to RCDF is in the nature of technical and professional service and thereby confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) at Rs. 10,268/-. He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) even when RCDF has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be deducted at source in respect of conversion charges and audit fees and thereby confirming the levy of interest of Rs.656/- and Rs.228/- u/s 201(1A). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) even when the respective payees have paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
Grounds of ITA No. 83/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2007-08) (Assessee's appeal)
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that payment of cess made to RCDF is in the nature of technical and professional service and thereby confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) at Rs. 11,240/-. He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) even when RCDF has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
4 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS)
2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be deducted at source in respect of conversion charges, legal fees and audit fees and thereby confirming the levy of interest of Rs. 9,358/-, Rs.5,382/- and Rs.241/- u/s 201(1A). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) even when the respective payees have paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
3. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be collected at source in respect of sale of scrap and thereby confirming the demand of tax of Rs. 1,423/- u/s 206C(6A) and interest Rs.854/- u/s 206C(7). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 206C(7) even when the payee has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
Grounds of ITA No. 84/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2008-09) (Assessee's appeal)
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that payment of cess made to RCDF is in the nature of technical arid professional service and thereby confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1 A) at Rs.23,329/-. He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) even when RCDF has paid tax more than that due as per 5 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be deducted at source in respect of conversion charges and thereby confirming the levy of interest of Rs.3,332/- u/s 201(1A). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1 A) even when the payee has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
3. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be collected at source in respect of sale of scrap and thereby confirming the demand of tax of Rs. 1,048/- u/s 206C(6A) and interest Rs.503/- u/s 206C(7). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 206C(7) even when the payee has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
4. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in not giving any decision regarding the action of the AO in holding that purchase of printed banners and iron frame is a contract for advertisement covered u/s 194C and thereby levying tax of Rs. 503/- u/s 201(1 A) and interest of Rs.480 u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on such purchase. He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201 (1A) even when the payee has paid tax more 6 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
Grounds of ITA No. 85/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2009-10) (Assessee's appeal)
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that payment of cess made to RCDF is in the nature of technical and professional service and thereby confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) at Rs.30,771/-. He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1 A) even when RCDF has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
2. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be deducted at source in respect of conversion charges and thereby confirming the levy of interest of Rs. 4,240/- u/s 201(1A). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) even when the payee has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
3. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be collected at source in respect of sale of scrap and thereby confirming the demand of tax of Rs.845/- u/s 206C(6A) and interest Rs.304/- u/s 206C(7). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 206C(7) even when the payee has paid tax more 7 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
Grounds of ITA No. 86/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee's appeal)
1. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be deducted at source in respect of conversion charges and thereby confirming the levy of interest of Rs.2,220/- u/s 201(1A). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) even when the payee has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
2. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Tax is to be collected at source in respect of sale of scrap and thereby confirming the demand of tax of Rs.3,139/- u/s 206C(6A) and interest Rs.752/- u/s 206C(7). He has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 206C(7) even when the payee has paid tax more than that due as per return and there is no loss of interest to the Revenue.
Grounds of ITA No. 87/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) (Assessee's appeal)
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in holding that payment of milk purchase price difference to milk societies (DCS & PDCS) is payment of commission/brokerage liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194H which the 8 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) assessee has failed to declare and thereby confirming the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)(though restricting it to the amount of Rs.9,83,914/- which remained payable at the close of the year).
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in holding that amendment to Sec. 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act 2012,w.e.f.
1/04/2015 has no retrospective effect and thereby not restricting the disallowance to 30% of the amount covered u/s 40(a)(ia).
Common Grounds of ITA No. 104 to 108/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11) (Revenue's appeal)
1. "Whether on facts and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the margin of distribution in the payments made by the assessee to its distributors is not commission liable for deduction u/s 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"
2. "Whether on facts and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 as there was no tax liability on the income of the deductee ?
Ground of ITA No. 96/JP/2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) (Revenue's appeal) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,22,38,131/- made by the A.O. on account of non deduction of TDS on milk purchase price difference U/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, without considering the findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order."
9 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS)
2. First ground of assessee's appeal in A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11 is against confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that payment of cess made to RCDF is in the nature of technical and professional service and levy of interest U/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) at Rs. 10,268/- in A.Y. 2006-07, Rs. 11,240/- in A.Y. 2007-08, Rs. 23,329/- in A.Y. 2008-09, Rs. 30,771/- in A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 2,220/- in A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee is a Cooperative Society, which collects milk from village level primary societies, which is engaged in the processing of milk and marketing milk and milk products to their member unions. There was a survey U/s 133A of the Act on 28/1/2010. During the course of survey, various discrepancies were noticed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, proceeding U/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act were initiated. The ld Assessing Officer gave reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee deductor on milk sold and commission paid, cess paid to RCDF for F.Y. 2005-06 to 2008-09 and 2009-10, commission to milk udpadak sahakari samiti and milk collection centres and other various payments made by the assessee. The assessee replied vide letter dated 22/1/2011, which has been reproduced by the ACIT(TDS) on page No. 5 to 27 of the assessment order. The ld Assessing Officer 10 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) observed that the assessee made payment of Cess to RCDF U/s 194J from F.Y. 2005-06 to 2009-10. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that it is reimbursement of expenditure but the assessee could not clarify particulars of expenditure for which reimbursement had made before the Assessing Officer. The RCDF had passed expertise and technical knowledge to its member's society. These services makes the member cooperative society profitable and viable in lieu of these services, the member society paid RCDF a certain amount of money, which is clarified on the basis of a fixed percentage of the total sales made by each members of the cooperative society. Such payment has been shown the nomenclature cess in the above background, he found that these payments of cess was nothing but a demand in lieu of the professional/technical services covered U/s 194J of the Act, which is liable to deduct TDS. Accordingly, the ld Assessing Officer held that the assessee defaulted U/s 201(1) in respect of such tax which ought to have been deducted thereon and interest U/s 201(1A) is also charged. However, as the payees had paid due tax on such receipts/income, therefore, keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt.
11 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) Ltd., no demand was raised U/s 201(1) of the Act and demand was raised u/s 201(1A) of the Act on account of interest as under:-
A.Y. Interest Date of Rate TDS TDS Delay Demand Intt. Total Credited payment of deductible deducted (in U/s U/s TDS month) 201(1) 201(1A) 2005-06 2933928 31.03.2006 5% 146696 Nil 7 Nil 10268 10268 2006-07 3746783 31.03.2007 5% 187339 Nil 6 Nil 11240 11240 2007-08 4251575 31.03.2008 5.1% 388811 Nil 6 Nil 23329 23329 & 10% 2008-09 5128586 31.03.2009 10% 512859 Nil 6 Nil 30771 30771 Total 75602 75602
3. The assessee challenged the interest charged U/s 201(1A) of the Act for all the years before the ld CIT(A), who had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-
"4.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant as also the findings of the A.O. It may be noted that the main dispute under consideration was whether TDS was to be deducted or not u/s 194J of IT Act on account of cess payment to M/s RCDF1but the appellant in the ground of appeal has objected only to the raising of demand on account of interest u/s 201(1 A) of IT Act because of the fact that the AO though held the assessee to be assessee in default for non deduction of TDS u/s 194J but did not raise the demand u/s 201(1) of IT Act as the payee has paid due taxes. However the issue of charging of interest u/s 201(1A) of IT Act is closely related with the issue of applicability of provisions of sec. 194J of IT Act in as much
12 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) as if the assessee was liable for deduction of TDS u/s 194J then interest u/s 201(1 A) of IT Act was mandatorily required to be charged. Therefore first issue to be adjudicated is whether provisions of sec. 194J of IT Act were applicable of not. It may be noted that the appellant has made payment to M/s RCDF which is shown as cess payment and as per the AO M/s RCDF is a profession body having expertise in the field of cooperatives dairy industries and that M/s RCDF provided expert professional guidance and services to the assessee for which such payment of cess was made. On the other hand the appellant case is that such payment was basically on account of reimbursement of expenses incurred by M/s RCDF on behalf of the assessee. However as noted by the AO there in nothing on record which may indicate that any expenditure was incurred by M/s RCDF on behalf of the assessee. The facts available on record indicate that the appellant has availed technical and professional services / guidance from M/s RCDF and therefore the payment made to the M/s RCDF was in the nature of fee for technical / professional services and TDS u/s 194J of IT Act was to be deducted. In this background though the AO has not raised demand u/s 201(1) of IT Act because of the reason that the payee has paid due taxes on such receipts / income but interest u/s 201(1A) of IT Act was to be 13 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) charged / recovered from the assessee deductor. The above finding finds support from the following case laws:
(i) CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Company (I) Pvt. Ltd. (312ITR
225) (SC)
(ii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Ltd. Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 163 (SC)
(iii) ITO, W-TDS-2, Jaipur Vs. M/s Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd.
(iv) ITA No.239/JPR/2012, ITAs No. 250 to 252/JPR/2012 (ITAT Jaipur) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above as also placing reliance on the case laws referred above the action of the AO in charging of interest u/s 201(1A) is confirmed."
4. Now the assessee is appeals before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the issue of charging interest U/s 201(1A) arises only if the assessee is liable for deduction U/s 194J of the Act but the cess paid to the RCDF. This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench dated 21/07/2015 passed in assessee's own case in ITA No. 277 & 382/JP/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09. He particularly referred page No. 9 and 10 of the Coordinate Bench decision wherein it has been held as under:-
"Apropos the payment to RCDF cess, it has not been demonstrated by the Department that any managerial 14 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) services in this connection have been rendered to assessee by RCDF qua this amount. RCDF is an apex cooperative body and cess is paid to it by virtue of federal structure in Rajasthan cooperative set up. Thus as far as assessee's business is concerned, there is no rendering of any managerial services by RCDF as alleged by the AO u/s 194H and upheld Id. C1T(A) u/s 194J. Since there is no rendering of any services and the payment is not made for any managerial services to RCDF, therefore, payment can neither be held as liable for TDS U/s 194H of the Act as commission/ brokerage as held by the AO nor u/s 194Jfor rendering any managerial services as held by the Id. CIT(A). In view thereof, we hold that assessee's impugned payments to RCDF are not liable for TDS. "
5. At the outset, the ld DR has fairly accepted the assessee's argument that this issue is covered by the Hon'ble ITAT's order cited by the ld AR.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The facts and nature of payment are identical to A.Y. 2008-09 and the Coordinate Bench had decided that the payments were not made for any managerial service to RCDF. Therefore, payment cannot be held the lower authorities. By 15 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09, we allow the assessee's appeal on this ground in all the years.
7. The 2nd ground of assessee's appeals is against confirming the conversion charges and audit fees liable to be deducted TDS and charging interest U/s 201(1A) in A.Y. 2006-07 at Rs. 656 and Rs. 228, in A.Y. 2007-08 at Rs. 9,358/-, Rs. 5,382/- and Rs. 241/-, in A.Y. 2008- 09 Rs. 3,332/-, in A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 4,240/- and in A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 2,220/-. The ld Assessing Officer observed that on payment on account of conversion charges, legal fees are liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194C and 194J of the Act respectively. The conversion charges paid by the assessee on which TDS is liable to be deducted and interest U/s 201(1A) is calculated as under:-
A.Y. Name of the Section/ Amount Demand Demand Total Recipient Rates (Rs.) of Tax of interest Demand u/s U/s 201(1) 201(1A)/ 206C(7) 2006-07 Alwar Dairy & 194C/2% 288717 - 656 656 Jaipur Dairy 2007-08 Alwar Dairy & 194C/2% 4059900 - 9358 9358 Jaipur Dairy 2008-09 Alwar Dairy & 194C/2% 1466405 - 3332 3332 Jaipur Dairy 2009-10 Alwar Dairy & 194C/2% 2019140 - 4240 4240 Jaipur Dairy 2010-11 Alwar Dairy & 194C/2% 1057356 - 2220 2220 Jaipur Dairy 16 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) The audit fees and reimbursement expenses are liable to be deducted TDS as per Assessing Officer as under:-
A.Y. Amount 201(1A)
Audit Reimbursement
Fees of expenses
2006-07 27600 8988 228
2007-08 27600 20202 241
8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had confirmed the addition by observing that the appellant made payment to Alwar Dairy and Jaipur Dairy for conversion of milk into ghee for milk powder.
The appellant's case is that such payments were made to these milk dairies on cost to cost basis without adding any profit margin and that TDS U/s 194C was not to be deducted. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer's case is that such payments were of contractual nature for getting specific work done and that even if no profit is given. The TDS was to be deducted, the ld CIT(A) has held that the assessee had conducted some specific work of conversion of milk into ghee and milk powder as per his own specification. It is also a fact that the milk was provided by the assessee, therefore, he held these payments as contractual in nature and also is liable for TDS.
17 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) 8.1 For legal fees, it has been held that the assessee is liable to deduct TDS in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 as audit fees was paid @ Rs. 2300 per month as claimed by the assessee. However, these facts had not been proved by the assessee before both the authorities. Therefore, he confirmed the interest on non deduction of TDS U/s 194J on audit fees by raising the demand U/s 201(1A) of the Act.
9. Now the assessee is appeals before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the payment of conversion charges is made to Alwar Dairy and Jaipur Dairy for conversion of milk into ghee and milk powder. Milk is procured from primary societies and processed by district level societies. To make available the milk at all places, surplus milk from one union to another transferred or some time milk is processed to make the milk powder or ghee. All these transfer activities from one union to another is done on cost to cost basis without adding any profit margin or rather the actual cost incurred by other milk union is just reimbursed without giving any profit. The assessee has reimbursed only actual cost incurred by these milk unions. Thus when no income is paid by assessee to other milk union, the question of deduction of tax at source does not otherwise 18 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) arise. On actual reimbursement, provision of deduction of tax at source would not apply as held in case of ITO Vs. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd. 95 TTJ 53 (Del.). The lower authorities have not appreciated the above facts and held that such transactions are covered u/s 194C in as much as payments are of contractual nature and the fact that no profit was given to party whom payment is made will make any material difference. However, it is ignored that when there is no income given, it is a case of simple reimbursement of expenses on which provision of Chapter XVII-B is not applicable. Hence, is not liable for deduction of tax at source on conversion charges. 9.1 He further submitted that an audit fee is paid to G.M. Gupta & Co. for monthly internal audit. Payment made to it is @ Rs.2,300/- p.m. Since the monthly payment is below Rs.20,000/-, no tax is deductable at source. The ld CIT(A) has not accepted this contention of the assessee for the reason that assessee has not furnished that audit fees is paid on monthly basis. In doing so he ignored that AO himself has given the details of monthly payment which is at Pg 41 of the CIT(A) order. Thus, when no tax is liable to be deducted on payment of audit fees, question of levy of interest does not arise. He 19 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) has further submitted that the CIT(A) has directed the AO to verify whether Shri Bharat Vyas, Advocate to whom payment is made has paid due taxes on such amount. If he has paid that tax, demand u/s 201(1) be reduced but interest u/s 201(1A) be charged. It is submitted that when the recipient has paid the tax on the legal fees paid to him and there is no loss of revenue to the department, no interest u/s 201(1 A) be levied. In view of above, the interest levied u/s 201(1 A) is uncalled for and be deleted.
10. At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A).
11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The conversion charges were paid on cost to cost basis and no profit has been charged as claimed by the assessee. When there is no element of profit, the TDS provisions are not applicable. The case law referred by the assessee i.e. ITO Vs. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable. Therefore, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A) under the head conversion charges. Audit fees is also paid on monthly basis to G.M. Gupta & Company, which is also below Rs.
20 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) 20,000/- as well as also below the specified limit as per the TDS provisions, therefore, the same is not liable to be deducted TDS. Interest on TDS deductible on legal fees paid to Shri Bharat Vyas has been set aside by the ld CIT(A) for verification, if the recipient has paid advance tax and fulfill the condition of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. then no interest is to be charged from the assessee U/s 201(1A) as the assessee claimed that on legal fees Shri Bharat Vyas, advocate had paid tax already by disclosing this income being nominal amount of interest, therefore, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A).
12. Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal in A.Y. 2007-08 is against confirming the demand of Rs. 1423/- U/s 206C(6A) not deducting TCS and levy of interest U/s 206C(7) of the Act of Rs. 854 in A.Y. 2007-08, Rs. 503 in A.Y. 2008-09, Rs. 304/- in A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 752/- in A.Y. 2010-11. The ld Assessing Officer has observed as under:-
F.Y. Sales amount TCS Delay (In Demand Interest Total month) U/s 206C 206C 2006-07 142252 1423 60 1423 854 2277 2007-08 104826 1048 48 1048 503 1551 2008-09 84540 845 36 845 304 1149 2009-10 313883 3139 24 3139 753 3892 21 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) The ld Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee sold scrap during the year under consideration, which is liable for TCS U/s 206C of the Act. The assessee submitted that the scrap material like Tin, polythin, iron scrap, plastic drum etc. were sold and that these scrap material were not generated during the manufacturing or mechanical process and therefore were not covered under the definition of scrap u/s 206C of the Act. The assessee, alternatively, claimed that the purchaser had already paid due tax on such transaction, therefore, there is no default U/s 206C of the Act whereas the Assessing Officer held that the assessee sold scrap and is covered U/s 206 of the Act.
13. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had dismissed the ground of appeal by observing as under:-
"The assessee has sold some scraps items and as per A.O. TCS was to be made U/s 206C of IT Act. On the other hand the appellant case is that provisions of Sec. 206C will be applicable only in respect of that scraps which is originated from manufacturing or mechanical working. On careful consideration of relevant facts stated above, it may be mentioned that there is no distinction in the definition of scrap which may indicate that the scrap originated from the 22 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) manufacturing process was only to be considered for collection of TCS. In fact this issue has already been clarified by the CBDT vide circular No. F. No. 275/86/2011-IT(B) dated 18/05/2012. Keeping in view the clarification issued by the CBDT, on sale of scrap TCS was to be collected. In view of these facts the action of the Assessing Officer is confirmed."
14. Now the assessee is appeals before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee sold scrap material like, tin, polythene, iron scrap, plastic drum, etc. The ld Assessing Officer held that scrap materials are part of manufacturing process and would constitute scrap as defined u/s 206C of the Act. Accordingly, he treated the assessee as assessee in default u/s 206C(6A) and raised a demand u/s 206C(6A) and u/s 206C(7). CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by relying on CBDT Circular dated 18.05.2012. It is submitted that provision of section 206C is applicable in respect of sale of scrap. The word 'Scrap' has been defined in explanation to section 206C as under:
"Scrap means waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of materials which is definitely not usable as such because of breakage, cutting up, wear and other reasons."
The item like tin, iron scrap, plastic drum, iron scrap sold by assessee are not generated during the manufacturing or mechanical working of 23 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) material. The assessee is processing milk and selling the same to customers in 'Saras Brand'. None of these scrap are generated during the manufacturing or mechanical process of material. Hence provision of section 206C is not applicable in the present case. The CBDT Circular only clarifies that even trader of scrap are liable for TCS. Therefore, this circular is not applicable. In view of above, the demand u/s 206C(6A)& u/s 206C(7) is uncalled for and be deleted.
15. At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A).
16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. As per Section 206C(11)(b) of the Act, the scrap has been defined as under:-
"Scrap means waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of materials which is definitely not usable as such because of breakage, cutting up, wear and other reasons."
As per this definition, the item sold by the assessee in scrap i.e. Tin, iron scrap, plastic drum etc. is not scrap generated from manufacturing process. Therefore, it is not liable to be deducted TCS U/s 206C of the Act. Accordingly, on this ground, the assessee's appeal is allowed.
24 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS)
17. Ground No. 4 of the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 is against interest on TDS U/s 194C of the Act, advertisement expenses at Rs. 503 in A.Y. 2008-09. The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased printed banner and iron frame is a contract for advertisement is covered U/s 194C of the Act for which the assessee has made payment to M/s Bansal Printers at Rs. 66,312/- and Mahalaxmi Welding at Rs. 24,410/-. The assessee submitted that the assessee had paid VAT on printed banner purchased from M/s Bansal Printers and Mahalaxmi Welding, therefore, Section 194C is not applicable. The ld CIT(A) has not given any findings on it, therefore, he prayed to delete the interest charged at Rs. 503/-. After considering the finding of both the lower authorities, we do not find any merit in the case of revenue that such payments are covered U/s 194C. Being a nominal amount and finding given by the lower authorities, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A).
18. Now we take revenue's appeals. Regarding revenue's appeal from A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11, the ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee being in the dairy marketing through diary cooperative societies, it fixes MRP price of milk and the amount on which milk was 25 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) sold to the consumers and noted that the margin amount fixed for each of distributor. Accordingly, the ld Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the margin amount retained by the distributor/agent was in fact commission payment on which TDS was deductible U/s 194H of the Act. As per Assessing Officer, such transactions were in the nature of principal to agent. Therefore, provisions of Section 194H was applicable. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that Section 194H is applicable where brokerage or commission was paid to the distributor. The assessee entered into an agreement between various distributors on principal to principal basis and that the transaction with the distributor was for purchase and sale of goods for a price paid or promised to be paid. As per agreement, the risk and reward relating to milk and other product were transferred to the distributor and the assessee was not responsible for losses relating to transit loss, pilferage, weight and loss etc. The assessee relied upon various cases before the Assessing Officer. He also alternatively stated before the Assessing Officer that the TDS is a transiable tax and it is a mode of collection and recovery of tax and the tax deducted at source by payer is to be allowed credit in the hands of payee. The payee already paid tax due on the demand received from the assessee 26 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) further recovery cannot be made from the assessee. The payee had paid more tax than the due and claimed refund also. He relied on the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra). However, the ld Assessing Officer not convinced with the submission of the assessee but calculated the interest U/s 201(1A) of the Act on TDS deductible from A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11, which was challenged by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) in appeal. The ld CIT(A) after considering the assessee's reply as well as case laws referred on identical issue by the assessee i.e. ACIT (TDS) Vs M/s Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited in ITA NO. 203 & 204/JP/2011 order dated 2/09/2011 has held that supply of milk and milk products by assessee to the distributors was a sale agreement on principal to principal basis not liable for deduction of tax at source U/s 194H of the Act. He has reproduced the finding of both the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT at page 32 to 35 of the order. Accordingly, he deleted the demand raised U/s 201(1) and interest U/s 201(1A) of the Act.
19. Now the revenue is in appeals before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has argued that the issue is identical to 27 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited Vs. ITO 30 DTR 418 and ACIT (TDS) Vs M/s Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited (supra) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has decided that any sale of milk by the assessee to the distributor is sale agreement on principal to principal basis and not liable for deduction of tax U/s 194H of the Act. Recently, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 277/JP/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 in assessee's own case order dated 21/7/2015 wherein in paragraph 3.14 has held that the assessee society does not purchase milk from cattle owners as mistakenly held by the ld Assessing Officer. Since the liability has been fastened under misconception of facts, we hold that this payment also is not liable U/s 194H of the Act. In view of this, the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the appeal against the addition made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
20. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The identical issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in various cases as submitted by the assessee. The assessee's transaction with distributor is sale. The risk and reward is with the distributor. The transaction is principal to principal basis. The distributor is not agent of the assessee.
28 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) From the side of assessee, no amount has been paid in form of commission or brokerage. The case laws referred by the assessee are squarely applicable, therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A).
21. In the result, all the revenue's appeals i.e. for A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11 are dismissed.
22. Now we take ITA No. 87/JP/2015 of the assessee for A.Y. 2011- 12 and cross appeal being ITA No. 96/JP/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12. Grounds of both the appeals are against not deducting TDS U/s 194H on payment of milk purchase price difference to milk societies and disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is a Cooperative Society engaged in manufacturing and trading of milk and milk product etc. The assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 1,32,22,045/- on account of milk purchase price difference. He further held that these payments were in the nature of commission/brokerage and was liable for deduction of TDS but the assessee has not deducted TDS. Therefore, he disallowed U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. After considering the assessee's reply, he made addition of same amount in the income of the assessee.
The assessee challenged this issue before the ld CIT(A), who has allowed the appeal partly after considering the assessee's reply and 29 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) case laws on it. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the milk was purchased from cattle owners but the purchases made through primary cooperative societies/samitis and payment to the cattle owners on account of milk was also made through these societies/samitis. The assessee has been paying 3% on cost of the purchase made from the cattle owners as a commission of brokerage, which is also part of sale amount. The appellant also argued before the ld CIT(A) that even if addition U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be made, such disallowance should be with reference to the amount, which was payable and if the amount already been paid then no such disallowance can be made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for which he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Service (P) Ltd. 94 DTR 101 (All) and other cases also. It is further submitted before the ld CIT(A) that Section 40(a)(ia) has been amended w.e.f. 1/4/2005 to remove on intended hardship, therefore, it should be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, disallowance should be 30% of total outstanding amount of Rs. 9,83,914/-. After considering the various decisions of Hon'ble ITAT and High Courts. The CBDT has issued a circular No. 10/DV/2013, F. No. 279/Misc./M-61/2012-ITJ(Vol-II) on Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and 30 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) clarified that disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia) is to be made not only on payable but paid amount. He further considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs/ Hero Cycles P. Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463 wherein it has been held that the circular issued by the Board is binding on ITO not on appellate authority or Tribunal or Court or even the assessee. Keeping in view of these facts, particularly placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of JVVNL Vs. DCIT (supra), it has been held that disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to the amount payable as on 31/3/2011 and not on the amount already paid during the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, he allowed appeal partly. The argument of the assessee that amendment w.e.f. 1/4/2015 in 40(a)(ia) is applicable retrospectively, has not accepted by the ld CIT(A).
23. Now both i.e. revenue and assessee are in appeals before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a cooperative society. It was constituted to give momentum to co- operative movement in milk sector and to push the white revolution in country through dairy cooperatives. The diary cooperative follow vertical integrated three tier structure as under:
- Primary Society i.e. village Diary Co-operative at the bottom 31 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS)
- Union i.e. District processing union at the middle level
- Federal Socieity i.e. State Co-operative Dairy Federation.
Each of these societies is having different functional responsibilities. The primary society collect the milk, the union i.e. district society process the milk collected by the primary societies and distribute it to the consumers and the federal society market the milk and milk products of their member. The above system is followed throughout the country by the entire dairy sector. The assessee is procuring milk from the primary societies. The rate of milk is based on the fat and SNF content in the milk. Collected milk is tested and processed in the plant of the assessee. On the basis of quality of the milk, the amount payable to the primary society against the cost of the milk is determined. To this cost 3% is added as milk purchase price difference against the margin of the primary societies. This amount alongwith the cost of the milk is paid to the primary societies. In the books of account the cost of the milk is debited under the head purchase of milk and margin of 3% is debited under the head milk purchase price difference. He further argued that ownership of the risk of goods so procured by the assessee from the primary societies remains in their account till the milk is tested and the quality approved by the assessee.
32 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) Till them the primary society is responsible for any loss or damage to the milk. In the milk bill, for transparency, cost of the milk is separately disclosed and the margin of the primary society thereto as their charges. This charge is a procurement cost to the assessee and not a payment of commission to them as the relationship between the assessee and the primary society is on principal to principal basis and not on principal agent basis. He has further drawn our attention on definition of sales as per the VAT Act, 2003 and argued that the commission is paid to a person when he acts on behalf of the other person. In such a case, the payment for value of the goods or service is made directly to the owner of goods/provider of service and the payment of commission is made separately to the person who is acting on behalf of the owner of goods or provider of service. In the present case, the assessee is making payment of the milk to the primary society and not to the cattle owners. Therefore, the observation of the A.O. that the assessee purchases milk from individual cattle owners is factually incorrect. In fact, the assessee purchased the milk from the primary societies and the primary societies purchased milk from cattle owners. The payment made to the cattle owner is not concerned of the assessee. Thus the payment made to the primary society is not a 33 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) commission covered U/s 194H of the Act. The ld Assessing Officer relied on the decision of CIT(A) in A.Y. 2008-09, which was decided against the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench had decided this issue in ITA No. 277/JP/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 in assessee's own case vide order dated 21/7/2015. The ld AR has drawn our attention on page No. 8 paragraph No. 3.10 of the order wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that the Assessing Officer has misconceived entire issue while holding that society pays the amount to cattle owners. The fact of the matter is that the milk price difference is paid to Primary Cooperative Societies and not the cattle owners as held by the Assessing Officer. After considering the assessee's argument, the Hon'ble ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue. Alternatively, the ld AR has also argued that if no TDS is deducted U/s 194H, paid and payable aspect is to be examined. The assessee claimed that there was no amount payable during the year under consideration to the primary society, for he relied on the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (supra), DCIT Vs. Ananda Marakala (2014) 150 ITD 323 (Bang.)(Trib) and ITO Vs. M/s Theekathir Press (Chennai) (Trib) ITA No. 2076/(Mds)/2012 dated 18/09/2013. It is further argued that if two opinions have been expressed by the various courts, the 34 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) favourable view of the assessee is to be considered as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cit Vs. Vegetable products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 and recently in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township P Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). Therefore, he prayed to delete the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A).
24. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the payments made by the assessee to the primary society is a commission and is covered U/s 194H of the Act.
25. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee purchased milk from the primary society not from the cattle owners. The payments are made to the primary society. The price of the milk is decided on the basis of fats by the assessee, the milk is processed in the plant of the assessee but at the stage of testing, the risk and reward is with the primary society. The assessee paid 3% on cost of the purchase price of milk to the primary society. The relationship between the assessee and primary society is principal to principal basis. It is undisputed fact that the purchase price and purchase difference has been claimed by the assessee under two heads but 35 ITA 82 to 87/JP/2015 & 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015 Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Vs ACIT (TDS) expenses debited under the purchase difference is cost of goods purchased. By respectfully following the Coordinate Bench decision in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 we hold that the assessee is not liable to deduction TDS U/s 194H of the Act. Accordingly, assessee's appeal is allowed and revenue's appeal is dismissed.
26. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/03/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½
(R.P.Tolani) (T.R. Meena)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 04th March, 2016
*Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Sikar & Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Sikar.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, (TDS), Jaipur/ACIT, Sikar.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 82 to 87/JP/2015, 104 to 108/JP/2015 & 96/JP/2015) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar