9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement is in any manner perverse, or capable of different interpretation. No substantial question of law - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 953 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant. Mr. Hiro Rai with Mr.Subhash Shetty and Mr. Dharan Gandhi, for the Respondent. P.C. : This Appeal under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act ) challenges the order dated 23 March 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( Tribunal ). This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has urged following question of law for our consideration : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 the CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23 March 2016, the Assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 23 January 2012, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed. This after recordings its findings on facts as under : The core issue to be decided is whether the discount allowed by the assessee on the MPR to SBPL is the price for selling of goods or in the nature of commission. Before deciding the issue, it needs reiteration that the assessee sells its entire products to SBPL and allows a discount of 51% on the MRP. This fact is evident from the invoices raised by the assessee copy of which has been submitted in the paper book. It is a fact on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem the contract of sale concludes as far as assessee is concerned, as goods cannot be returned back to the assessee. Therefore, examined in the aforesaid perspective, it has to be concluded that it is a transaction of sale between the assessee and SBPL on principal-to-principal basis and there is no agency between them. Further, on a perusal of the invoices raised, it is clear that the assessee has given a discount of 51% on MRP of the goods sold. These evidences clearly demonstrate that there is no relationship of principal and agent between the assessee and SBPL. The Departmental Authorities have failed to demonstrate that SBPL was acting as agent on behalf of the assessee to satisfy the condition of section 194H. It is also r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
