Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f

Commissioner of Income TaX-I vs. Agriculturl Market Committee

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.6.2010 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005 & I.T.A. No.153/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2005-2006. As Rightly Pointed Out By Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Advocate Representing The Revenue/Appellant That The Tax Effect Involved In The Instant Appeal Is Rs.44,94,103/- Which Is Far Below The Threshold Limit As Would Be Evident From The Circular Issued By The C.B.D.T. This Appeal Was Admitted On May 03, 2011 & The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Have Been Framed By The Hon’Ble Division Bench:- (I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Confirming The Order Of Disallowance In Setting Side The Order Of Disallowance Or Labour Charges Of Security Guard By Totally Misconstruing The Provisions Contained In Section 40(A)(Ia) Read With Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961?