9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallenges the impugned order of the Tribunal emanating for two different appeals. Senior Advocate appearing for the Revenue, on instructions, undertakes that the court fee in respect of one more appeal would be paid by the Revenue within three weeks from today. In the absence of payment of deficit court fee within the time undertaken, one of the two appeals is liable to be dismissed.We proceed to hear the appeal on the basis of the above undertaking. 3. In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2007 -08, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 56,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the ratio of decision in the case of CIT V/s. Samsung Electronics Limited of Karnataka High Court, which was subsequently reconfirmed by Karnataka High Court on 15 10 2011 ? vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the law does not stipulate the existence of a written contract as a condition precedent for payment of TDS when it is not in dispute that the turnover of the assessee exceeds the monetary limit specified under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 44AB ? vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract for supply of raw material and packing material. It was a composite contract and it was not the obligation of the respondent assessee to pay freight for carriage of the goods. The seller of goods who charged a consolidated price engaged a transporter and paid the freight. In these circumstances, there would be no occasion for the respondent assessee to deduct tax at source. In view of the above, the Tribunal concluded that the amount of freight paid could not be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain question (ii). 6. In so far as question (v) is concerned, same is not pressed by the learned senior A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
