Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.72 seconds)
C.G.Lucy Swithchgear Ltd., vs Assessee cites

Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar, ... on 23 March, 1993

A.Y. 2006-07 2009 as well as CBDT circular no. 681 dated 8-3-1994 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT & anor (supra). The second situation was that the assessee got the supply of products which were manufactured by the vendors i.e. sub-contractor out of material purchased form the customers as per the specification or design or dyes. The Tribunal held that such transactions fall within the ambit of definition of "work". Under these backgrounds, the Tribunal allowed relief to the assessee in the first situation and held the assessee responsible to deduct tax at source treating the same as work contract payment. During the year, the contention of the learned AR before us is that the assessee company has sold material only to two parties viz. Shubhada Polymers Products P. ltd., and Press Metal Industries instead of all four parties amounting to Rs. 46,67,594/-. His further contention remained that the material purchased by using this material is Rs. 1,15,59,744/- only. We are of the view that these material facts are required to be verified as to whether the transactions in question is work contract or sale. It is required to be examined in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the tribunal in the case of assessee itself for the A.Y. 2005-06 (supra). We accordingly set aside the matter to the file of the A.O to examine the facts of the present case especially with the matter of transaction in question in view of the decision of the 10 ITA No. 1481/PN/2009 CG Lucy Switchgear Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 136 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Cit vs Arman Sheikh on 29 June, 2007

A.Y. 2006-07 that in the A.Y. 2006-07 (under consideration) this definition was not available and only section 194-C(1) was available. In section 194-C(1) available for the assessment year under consideration a specified person was also defined including a company like the assessee. The learned AR referred page 65 of the paper book Vol. II for the citation in support. The AR also contended that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arman Sheikh (2007) 293 ITR 266 (Gauhati) has been pleased to hold that when taxes have been paid by the assessee then there is no question of making disallowance on the default of non-deduction of tax at source on the part of the assessee.
Gauhati High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam ... vs Dcit, Circle-2, Meerut on 2 November, 2020

A.Y. 2006-07 Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for the A.Y. 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The A.O while deciding the issue is also directed to take into account the applicability of the decision cited above on behalf of the assessee including the decision of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) cited by the learned AR. Ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground no. 2
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mrs. Meena S. Patil vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 29 March, 2007

In this regard, he also placed reliance on the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Meena S. Patil Vs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 114 ITD 181(Bang). The learned DR on the other hand, tried to justify the orders of lower authorities on the issue. The learned DR submitted that all the arrangements have been devised by the assessee in the present case to defeat the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194-C of the Act. The learned DR also referred contents of written submissions filed on behalf of the department. The learned DR placed reliance on the following decisions:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1