INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. SINNAR TALUKA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK PRAKRIYA SANGH MARYADIT, SINNAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 401/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 August 2019AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous years where the Tribunal and the High Court had decided against the Revenue. Therefore, following the consistent view, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) by the CIT(A). The addition was related to commission payments made without deducting TDS.

What were the issues?

Whether commission payments made without TDS deduction are disallowable under Section 40(a)(ia), and the nature of the relationship between the assessee and other milk societies for commission payments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik dated 05-12-2016 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds of appeal by Revenue assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are :

2 ITA No.401/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Nasik was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,25,25,148/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee made sanstha vyavasthapan charges (commission Payments Rs.1,15,29,968/-) and Dudh Vikri Partichi Commission (Milk Sales Commission payable Rs.9,95,180/-) without deducting TDS as per the provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Nasik was justified to hold that the relation of the assessee and other milk societies are principal to principal basis, instead it was principal to agent basis, while dealing commission payment to other societies. 3. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, alter, or delete any ground of appeal.”

3.

None appeared to represent the assessee. However, written submissions have been filed on behalf of assessee. A perusal of written submissions reveal that the issue raised in the present appeal by the Revenue is identical to the one raised in ITA No. 2482/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2012-13 by the Revenue in assessee’s own case. The issue was decided against the Department by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 03-08-2018. Identical issue was raised in the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 by the Department in ITA Nos. 1553/PN/2013, 1706/PN/2014 and 1393/PUN/2015 for the respective assessment years. The Tribunal has been consistently deciding this issue against the Revenue. The Department filed appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 161 of 2015 against the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 1553/PN/2013 dated 28-05-2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. The said appeal of Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 01-03-2016 on account of low tax. Since, the issue in appeal is recurring in nature and no material has been placed before us to show any difference in the facts and transaction

3 ITA No.401/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14

involved in the assessment year under appeal, we find no reason to take a view different from the one already taken by the Co-ordinate Benches. Following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the preceding assessment years in assessee’s own case, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for the similar reasons.

4.

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 01st day of August, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (डी. करुणाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 01st August, 2019 RK आदेश की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-I, Nashik 3. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाडड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रयत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →