The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 against Nirja Publishers & Printers Pvt. Ltd. The appeals pertained to the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and sought to challenge orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeals. The delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned after the Registry raised defects, and the appeals between the same parties were taken up together for disposal. The court heard counsel for both sides and made its decision based on the facts and legal matrix of the case.
The appeals were based on similar factual and legal matrix, and the court took them up together for disposal. The delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned after the Registry raised defects, and the court heard counsel for both sides before making its decision.
The appeals sought to challenge orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeals. The court made its decision based on the facts and legal matrix of the case.
The court found that the discount offered by the respondent/assessee was in the nature of trade discount and not commission. Given this finding of fact, the respondent/assessee was not required to deduct tax at source under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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.
The court also found that the exercise of printing and binding of books was carried out at the eligible undertaking of the respondent/assessee. The question as to whether the exercise of printing and binding of books is carried out at the eligible undertaking of the respondent/assessee is a question of fact, on which findings of CIT(A) in favour of the respondent/assessee were confirmed by the Tribunal.
The court found that the material on record, including the additional evidence, established the claim of the respondent/assessee that from the premises of eligible undertaking, printing activity had genuinely been carried out, so the claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Act was fully allowable. The material on record, including the additional evidence, clearly established that the payment made by the respondent/assessee to M/s S.Chand & Co. was in the nature of trade discount and not in the nature of commission, so there was no necessity to deduct TDS under Section 194H of the Act and as such, addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not sustainable.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 against Nirja Publishers & Printers Pvt. Ltd. The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeals and made its decision based on the facts and legal matrix of the case. The court heard counsel for both sides and took into account the material on record, including additional evidence, before making its decision.
CASE NAME : THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 ….. Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Deeksha Gupta, Adv.
versus
NIRJA PUBLISHERS AND PRINTERS PVT. LTD. ….. Respondent Through: Ms Sujatha Shirolkar, Advocate.
Name : Vashni Angel . v , BBA . LLB. (H), College : Amity University , Noida , Intern under Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
