Gujarat High Court
Bharti Auto Products vs Income Tax Officer (Tds) - ... on 23 September, 2014
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, Sonia Gokani
O/TAXAP/1019/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1019 of 2014
================================================================
BHARTI AUTO PRODUCTS....Appellant(s)
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - 3....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR P HEMANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 23/09/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) Heard Mr. Tushar Hemani, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pranav Desai, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents.
Admit.
The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:
"(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in interpreting the definition of "scrap" given in clause (b) to Explanation to S.206C of the Income Tax Act so as to mean that both the words "waste" and "scrap" are two Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/1019/2014 ORDER different and distinct words and the conditions of the same being generated from manufacture or mechanical working goes only with the later word scrap and not with the earlier word waste?
(B) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the discarded brass items being traded by the appellant fall within the ambit of "Scrap" as defined vide explanation (b) to section 206C of the Act in spite of the fact that the such items are not an outcome of manufacture or mechanical working of materials?
(C ) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 206C as to collection of tax at source are applicable to the appellant in spite of the fact that the appellant is merely a "Trader" and not a "manufacturer" in his own right?
(D) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the person to whom the appellant sold the brass items were "Buyers" as defined vide Explanation (aa) to section 206C of the Act in spite of the fact that the appellant had made retail sales to such persons?"
The appellant has proposed as many as nine questions, the above referred questions would cover all the nine questions.
To be heard with Tax Appeal No.674 of 2014 (HARSHA DEVANI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/1019/2014 ORDER Vahid Page 3 of 3