9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions Nos. 678 to 683, 1115, 1807, 1862, 1864 and 2905 of 2000, already stand answered in favour of the petitioners and against the Revenue by our order passed in Naresh Kumar and Co. v. Union of India [2000] 243 ITR 760 (P H), Civil Writ Petition No. 15583 of 1999, decided on February 22, 2000. What is now pointed out by learned senior counsel for the Income-tax Department is that the main c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), requires reconsideration. We are unable to accept this contention of learned counsel. When Naresh Kumar and Co.'s case [2000] 243 ITR 760 (P H) was argued along with others it was never brought to our notice that the L-14A licensees and L-13 licensees in any of those cases were the same persons. We proceeded in those cases on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 206C of the Act and, therefore, he was not required to collect ten per cent. of the licence fee as income-tax at source. We had also held that the "amount payable" in section 206C of the Act does not include the licence fee which has to be paid by a licensee to the State Government. Now coming to the present writ petitions, the petitioners herein are L-14A licensees from whom ten per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases whether the petitioners are buyers in further sale of goods of the nature specified in the table referred to in sub-section (1) of section 206C of the Act. For the reasons recorded in our earlier order in Naresh Kumar and Co.'s case [2000] 243 ITR 760 (P H), we hold that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner is not a seller within the meaning of section 206C of the Act and that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
