BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS)

281 ITR 99High Court2006#4668 most cited

What is BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) authority for?

An assessee cannot be held as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act if the agreements entered into were not works contracts within the meaning of section 194C.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) · 281 ITR 99 · section 194C · section 201(1) · works contract · assessee-in-default · goods passed on delivery · excise duty · sales-tax

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 154Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)

Issues it is cited on

business expediencysection 201(1a)section 194csection 201(1)section 201section 194section 20section 19section 133asection 133(6)transferprescribed

Judgments citing BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS)

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 708/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Kumar C Leuva
Section 133ASection 154Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…es-tax, and the property in the goods passed onto the assessee only upon delivery of the products. Referring to the 15 ITA Nos. 707 & 708/Mum/2025- Shoppers Stop Limited decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (281 ITR 99), this Tribunal, in the instant case, held that the agreements entered into by the assessee with the manufacturers were not works contracts within the meaning of section 194C of the Act and, consequently, the assessee could not be held as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue p…

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 707/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Kumar C Leuva
Section 133ASection 154Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…es-tax, and the property in the goods passed onto the assessee only upon delivery of the products. Referring to the 15 ITA Nos. 707 & 708/Mum/2025- Shoppers Stop Limited decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (281 ITR 99), this Tribunal, in the instant case, held that the agreements entered into by the assessee with the manufacturers were not works contracts within the meaning of section 194C of the Act and, consequently, the assessee could not be held as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue p…

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1163/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri Manan MathuriaFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

…e raw materials on its own and paid excise duty and sales-tax, and the property in the goods passed onto the assessee only upon delivery of the products. Referring to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (281 ITR 99), this Tribunal, in the instant case, held that the agreements entered into by the assessee with the manufacturers were not works contracts within the meaning of section 194C of the Act and, consequently, the assessee could not be held as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue p…

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI vs. SHOPPPERS STOP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1783/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Acit (Osd) Tds 2(2), M/S Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7Th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue By: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri MananFor Respondent: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (DR)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

…e raw materials on its own and paid excise duty and sales-tax, and the property in the goods passed onto the assessee only upon delivery of the products. Referring to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (281 ITR 99), this Tribunal, in the instant case, held that the agreements entered into by the assessee with the manufacturers were not works contracts within the meaning of section 194C of the Act and, consequently, the assessee could not be held as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue p…

TULASI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…e of the assessee, consideration paid is towards value of hybrid seeds procured from the organizers and not at all contractual. The AO relied on the decision of BDA Limited (84 ITD 442). The decision was subsequently reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (281 ITR 99). Therefore, the Ld.AR argued that there is no job contract or supply contract. It is a pure activity of purchase of hybrid seeds from the organizers. Since it is a purchase transaction, there is no contract involved 23 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2015, 55/Viz/2016, 139/Viz/2015 and 06/Viz/2016, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Tulasi Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Guntur and…

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PVT,. LTD.,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 55/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…e of the assessee, consideration paid is towards value of hybrid seeds procured from the organizers and not at all contractual. The AO relied on the decision of BDA Limited (84 ITD 442). The decision was subsequently reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (281 ITR 99). Therefore, the Ld.AR argued that there is no job contract or supply contract. It is a pure activity of purchase of hybrid seeds from the organizers. Since it is a purchase transaction, there is no contract involved 23 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2015, 55/Viz/2016, 139/Viz/2015 and 06/Viz/2016, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Tulasi Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Guntur and…

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S TULASI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 167/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…e of the assessee, consideration paid is towards value of hybrid seeds procured from the organizers and not at all contractual. The AO relied on the decision of BDA Limited (84 ITD 442). The decision was subsequently reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (281 ITR 99). Therefore, the Ld.AR argued that there is no job contract or supply contract. It is a pure activity of purchase of hybrid seeds from the organizers. Since it is a purchase transaction, there is no contract involved 23 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2015, 55/Viz/2016, 139/Viz/2015 and 06/Viz/2016, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Tulasi Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Guntur and…

TULASI SEEDS PVT.,LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…e of the assessee, consideration paid is towards value of hybrid seeds procured from the organizers and not at all contractual. The AO relied on the decision of BDA Limited (84 ITD 442). The decision was subsequently reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (281 ITR 99). Therefore, the Ld.AR argued that there is no job contract or supply contract. It is a pure activity of purchase of hybrid seeds from the organizers. Since it is a purchase transaction, there is no contract involved 23 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2015, 55/Viz/2016, 139/Viz/2015 and 06/Viz/2016, A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Tulasi Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Guntur and…

ITO 12(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KESHMA IMPEX P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 767/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer- Vs. M/S. Keshma Impex Pvt.Ltd 12(3)(2) P-28, M.R. Housing Society Room No.147A, 1St Floor Relief Road, Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Raheja College M.K.Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 054 Pan/Gir No.Aabck5728R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.54/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.767/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Keshma Impex Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer- P-28, M.R. Housing Society 12(3)(2) Room No.147A, 1St Floor Relief Road, Opp. Raheja College Aayakar Bhavan Santacruz (W) M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 054 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabck5728R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)

…ore the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was as under:- (a) “Whether the supply of printed lables by M/s. Mudranika to the assessee amounted to contract for sale, or works contract?” The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of BDA Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 281 ITR 99 had held as under:- “13. It is not disputed that, M/s. Mudranika is an independent establishment engaged in the business of supplying printed packaging material to various establishments, and it is not a captive unit of the assessee. The assessee had issued a purchase order in favour of M/s. Mudranika for supply of printed labels as per the specif…

REETA RAJESH SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhsmt. Reeta Rajesh Sheth Ito-24(3)(4) C/O M/S Rusapi Containers, Bandra (E), Mumbai. 251, Jawahar Nagar, 1St Road, Goregaon (W), Vs. Mumbai-400062 Pan:Aafps7363F

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…ing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty is liable to be deleted. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in case of BDA Ltd. vs. ITO [281 ITR 99 (Bom)] and decision of Tribunal in Ramkrishna Shetty vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7142/M/2011 dated 11.12.2013. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of lower authority. 4. We have considered the submission of ld. representative of both the parties. Considering the facts and the present case, we are in agreement with the submissions of ld AR f…

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 206/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…that the said payments fall outside purview of Section 194C of the Act. Accordingly he deleted the impugned addition made in all these cases. The learned CIT (A) relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision on the case of CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 197. 5. As pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, this Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of M/s Devi Fisheries Ltd., and also in the case of Shri Bommana Ramachandra Rao, wherein this Tribunal has categorically held…

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 205/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…that the said payments fall outside purview of Section 194C of the Act. Accordingly he deleted the impugned addition made in all these cases. The learned CIT (A) relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision on the case of CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 197. 5. As pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, this Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of M/s Devi Fisheries Ltd., and also in the case of Shri Bommana Ramachandra Rao, wherein this Tribunal has categorically held…

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 203/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…that the said payments fall outside purview of Section 194C of the Act. Accordingly he deleted the impugned addition made in all these cases. The learned CIT (A) relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision on the case of CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 197. 5. As pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, this Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of M/s Devi Fisheries Ltd., and also in the case of Shri Bommana Ramachandra Rao, wherein this Tribunal has categorically held…

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 202/VIZ/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…that the said payments fall outside purview of Section 194C of the Act. Accordingly he deleted the impugned addition made in all these cases. The learned CIT (A) relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision on the case of CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 197. 5. As pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, this Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of M/s Devi Fisheries Ltd., and also in the case of Shri Bommana Ramachandra Rao, wherein this Tribunal has categorically held…

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVE,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT (A),-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs

ITA 201/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 May 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…that the said payments fall outside purview of Section 194C of the Act. Accordingly he deleted the impugned addition made in all these cases. The learned CIT (A) relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision on the case of CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 197. 5. As pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, this Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of M/s Devi Fisheries Ltd., and also in the case of Shri Bommana Ramachandra Rao, wherein this Tribunal has categorically held…

HYBRID FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 6571/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.6303/M/12, I.T.A. No. 326/M/14 & 6571/M/14 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) बनाम/ Hybrid Financial Services Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 10(3) Vs. 17-A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.473, Raj Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Premises Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2824M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

…y been paid. In this regard the tax invoice is on record which is lying at page 23 of the paper book. Apparently, it is not a contract for work liable to TDS u/s. 194C of the Act. In this regard we also found support of law settled in BDA Limited Vs. ITO(TDS) 281 ITR 99 wherein it is held that the supply of printed labels as per the customers specification is a contract of sale and is not a contract of work therefore the contract of sale is not liable to be TDS u/s.194C of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustaina…

HYBRID FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 326/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.6303/M/12, I.T.A. No. 326/M/14 & 6571/M/14 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) बनाम/ Hybrid Financial Services Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 10(3) Vs. 17-A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.473, Raj Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Premises Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2824M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

…y been paid. In this regard the tax invoice is on record which is lying at page 23 of the paper book. Apparently, it is not a contract for work liable to TDS u/s. 194C of the Act. In this regard we also found support of law settled in BDA Limited Vs. ITO(TDS) 281 ITR 99 wherein it is held that the supply of printed labels as per the customers specification is a contract of sale and is not a contract of work therefore the contract of sale is not liable to be TDS u/s.194C of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustaina…

HYBRID FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A,C,I.T.-10(3), MUMBAI

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 6303/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.6303/M/12, I.T.A. No. 326/M/14 & 6571/M/14 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) बनाम/ Hybrid Financial Services Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 10(3) Vs. 17-A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.473, Raj Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Premises Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2824M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

…y been paid. In this regard the tax invoice is on record which is lying at page 23 of the paper book. Apparently, it is not a contract for work liable to TDS u/s. 194C of the Act. In this regard we also found support of law settled in BDA Limited Vs. ITO(TDS) 281 ITR 99 wherein it is held that the supply of printed labels as per the customers specification is a contract of sale and is not a contract of work therefore the contract of sale is not liable to be TDS u/s.194C of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustaina…

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 2241/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Pfizer Ltd., The Dcit Range 8(2), बनाम/ Pfizer Center, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 5, Patel Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Off. S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 2069/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit Range 8(2), M/S. Pfizer Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Pfizer Center, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 5, Patel Estate, Off. S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss

…e circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in holding with reference to packing material that the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case are comparable to the facts and circumstances in the case of M/s. BDA Ltd Vs ITO (TDS) 281 ITR 99(Bombay) without appreciating that the facts in the instant case are distinguishable? The Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 1.4.2015 in IT Appeal No. 1390 of 20913 admitted the questions of law mentioned in S. No. A & B and dismissed questions of law mentioned in Sl. Nos. C & D as under: “3. Mr. Malhotra, however, would urge that even question…

ASST CIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee i

ITA 2450/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5053 To 5057/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years :2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit(Tds)-2(2), Room Vs. M/S Pfizer Limited, Pfizer 7Th No.703, Floor, Smt. Centre, Patel Estate, K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital S.V.Road, Jogeshwari Building, Charni Road, (West), Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3334 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2450/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit (Tds)-2(2), Room Vs. M/S Pfizer Limited, Pfizer 7Th No.703, Floor, Smt. Centre, Patel Estate, K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital S.V.Road, Jogeshwari Building, Charni Road, (West), Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3334 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.141/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" M/S Pfizer Limited, Pfizer Vs. Acit (Tds)-2(2), Room No.703, 7Th Floor, Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic Centre, Patel Estate, S.V.Road, Jogeshwari Hospital Building, Charni Road, (West), Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3334 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.Pandian िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर : Shri Kirit Kamdar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/02/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2016

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

…“13. I have perused the facts of the case as well as the submissions of the appellant. I am of the opinion that this ground is covered in favour of the Appellant by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of BDA Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) 281 ITR 99 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that TDS is not required to be deducted under section 19cC on purchase of packing material. Based on the above, I am of the opinion that the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act cannot be said to be applicable on purchase of packing material. Accordingly, there is no default on the part of the App…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

BDA Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (281 ITR 99) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax