9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile doing the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the disallowance by observing as under:- On examination of the books of accounts it is observed that no tax on such payment/credit has been deducted at source during the relevant previous year or within the time prescribed u/s.200(1) of the I.T Act 61. Accordingly, the said expenditure on the aforementioned total expenditure to the tune of ₹ 64,36,384/- , comprising of sub-contractor payment of ₹ 62,06,084/- and Transport Charges ₹ 2,30,300/-, is, therefore, not deductible in computing total income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession as per the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act 61 read with proviso the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified persons and the property in such article or thing passes to the Govt. or such person only after such article or thing is delivered, the contract will be a contract for sale and shall be outside the purview of section 194C. Further, reference is invited to the Punjab and Haryana High Court s decision in the case of CIT vs. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Markfed, Khanna 304 1TR 17. In this case, the assessee had purchased printed packing material made according to its specifications but did not deduct tax at source. The Court held that the factum of such material carrying some printed work could only be regarded as the work executed by the supplier incidental to the sale made to the assessee. The raw material for the manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he requested to uphold the same. 8. After hearing the rival submissions, on careful perusal of the material available on record including the copies of the bills in respect of 7 parties, where the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition. We are of the view that all the works are relating to purchase of material with some specifications. It is further observed that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Markfed, Khanna [304 ITR 17]. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
