9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versity in the said findings of facts, this court under Section 260A of the Act cannot venture into that aspect. TDS u/s 194H - trade discount offered by the assessee to the buyer - non deduction of TDS - HELD THAT:- The issue under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stands already covered in favour of the assessee by way of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association [ 2012 (9) TMI 298 - SC ORDER] - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Aseem Chawla, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Pratishtha Chaudhay and Mr Aditya Gupta, Advocates., Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Deeksha Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent Through: Ms Sujatha Shirolkar, Advocate. GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.: CM APPL. 12487/2023 in ITA 157/2023 [Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal] By way of this application, the appellant/revenue has sought condonation of delay of 245 days in re-filing the appeal No. ITA 157/2023 after curing the defects raised by the Registry of this court. The delay is explained largely on account of collation of relevant records. There being no serious objection, the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short, the Act ]. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, which is also the view taken by the CIT(A), is that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained. 6. We may note that this view has been accepted by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201(SC). 7. Therefore, insofar as proposed question no. (ii) is concerned, in our view, that question does not arise for consideration. 8. As regards the proposed question no.(i), since Ms Sujatha Shirolkar, Advocate seeks accommodation, list the appeal on 07.12.2023 . 2.2 ITA No. 157/2023 order dated 16.03.2023 1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. This appeal seeks to assail the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, Tribunal ]. 3. In passing the impugned order the Tribunal has followed its decision rendered for AY 2011-12. 3.1 Broadly, two issues arose for consideration before Tribunal. First, whether deduction claimed by the respondent/assessee under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ] was sustainable? Second, whether trade discount offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer to explain the claim, the respondent/assessee furnished detailed submissions, but the same were rejected by the Assessing Officer observing that the respondent/assessee did not carry out any printing or binding of books in the eligible undertaking at Rudrapur as neither the paper nor the printed material reached the eligible unit for printing, cutting and binding etc. and no manufacturing activity had actually taken place in the Rudrapur premises, therefore, the deduction of Rs. 7,28,63,013/- under Section 80IC of the Act could not be allowed. Further, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 6,04,45,025/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of trade discount offered by the respondent/assessee to the buyer M/s S. Chand Co. holding that the said discount was in the nature of commission on which tax deductable at source (TDS) under Section 194H of the Act was not deducted by the respondent/assessee. 3.3 As regards the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act claimed by the respondent/assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer reiterated the above mentioned reasoning of the prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding that the respondent/assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IC of the Act because there was no printing or manufacturing of books in the eligible undertaking at Rudrapur. 5. During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue contended that the orders impugned in the present case are not sustainable since there is ample material on record to establish that no printing or binding of books was taking place in the eligible undertaking. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant/revenue in entirety dealt with the factual aspects, aimed at establishing that there was no printing or binding of books carried out in the eligible undertaking, therefore, the respondent/assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee supported the impugned orders and contended that this court under Section 260A of the Act cannot examine a question of fact. 6. Evidently, neither side disputes the status of the respondent/assessee as running the eligible undertaking in terms of Section 80IC of the Act. The only dispute in the present case is that according to the appellant/revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
