9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of footwear worth ₹ 38.29 crore cannot be equated to “any work” so as to fall within the purview of Section 194C. For the balance purchase for a sum of ₹ 7.90 crores the reasoning advanced by the CIT for the purpose of holding that the purchase amounted to awarding a specific job work to the vendors is neither supported by law nor is factually a correct finding. Goods can be sold either by sample or by description or manufactured as per requirement of the buyer. The assessee has purchased the goods and has admittedly paid sales tax, central excise duty and has in its turn availed the benefit of cenvat credit which is inconsistent with a job contract contemplated by section 194C of the Income Tax Act. Section 194C contempla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Adjudicating authority that the transaction between the assessee and its supplier was in the nature of work done by the supplier on behalf of the assessee i.e. outsourcing and without reasons holding that the said transaction was a sale was perverse ? The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee a well-known merchant in footwear made purchase worth ₹ 46.30 Crores approximately. The purchase and sale transactions were duly offered for taxation. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the purchase for the sum of ₹ 46.30 Crores was, in fact, an outsourcing and therefore, the assessee should have deducted tax at source under section 194C. He on that basis held the assessee liable for payment of ₹ 1.06 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of goods by ordering extra improvement on the goods brought by the vendors for sale to the appellant. I agree that by providing extra improvement, labels, marks, identity on the footwear brought for sale by the vendors to the appellant made them unique and distinct in a way suited to the appellant. It, therefore, amounted to awarding a specific job work to the vendors and could not be termed as purchase simplicitor. The case of the assessee has always been that the goods were purchased on the basis of samples which has not been disputed or could not be disputed by the revenue. The reasoning advanced by the CIT for the purpose of holding that the purchase worth ₹ 7.90 crores amounted to awarding a specific job work to the vendors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
