9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UJARAT HIGH COURT]- Decided in favour of assessee - Tax Appeal No. 970 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A. S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the appellant revenue has called in question the order dated 5.5.2017 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad A Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in ITA No.2926/ Ahd/ 2013, by proposing the following question, stated to be a substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of section 194C of the Act, which provide that any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct the amount specified thereunder. 7. The expression work has been defined under clause (iv) of the Explanation to section 194C of the Act to include- (a) advertising; (b) broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being Tax Appeals No.775 of 2006 to 777 of 2006, which came to be dismissed by a judgment and order dated 28.11.2014. 10. Since the controversy involved in the present case, is identical to the controversy involved in the above appeals, the issue involved in the present assessee would stand squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above judgment. 11. Applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, non-deduction of tax at source on the payment made to the distributors for exhibiting films would not attract the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
