EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI
The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation
ITA 39/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18
For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 194CSection 250Section 271C
7 of 18
M/s EID Parry India Limited
ITA No.: 35-40/PAN/2019
AY : 2011-2012 to 2016-2017
7.3
Considering the written submissions, copy of one sample agreement entered for the sugar season year 2014-2015 the Ld. ITO-
TDS, confuting each of the foresaid defence taken by the appellant, deduced that; Contract for harvesting cannot be claimed
