9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR MANISH BHATT, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) dated 08.08.2005 in ITA No. 3735/Ahd/2004 for the Assessment Year 2003-04, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the following substantial question of law: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case on hand the assesses-cooperative societies used to purchase the sugarcanes from the farmers, on condition that the farmers shall supply the same at the gate of their respective factory. Meaning thereby, here, the supply of sugarcane at the gate of the factories of the assesses is not a separate work contract, but, it is essentially the part of the sell transaction. In that view of the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in CIT (TDS) VS. KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. (Supra). In that case, the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and for the said purpose, it used to consume natural gas. The assessee, therein, was supplied natural gas by different agencies through pipelines. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax vs. Krishak Bharati Co-operative Ltd. reported in [2012] 349 ITR 68 (Guj) wherein this Court has held that to transport the gas was a part of sale transaction, and therefore, the assessee, therein, was not required to deduct TDS. 6. Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate on behalf of the Department. He is not in a position to dispute the above and is not in a position to show and/or point out any contrary decision. 7. Having heard Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department and Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee and the question posed for consideration by us repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
