Like our Facebook Page

news details

Findings of facts recorded by IT Tribunal cannot be gone into: HC 3/12/2018 10:53:12 PM Early Times Report Jammu, Mar 12: Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Ali Mohd. Magrey while dismissing the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, against the Judgment dated 27.10.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, held that the foundation of the proposed substantial question of law does not exist. The assessee - M/S Upkar Goods Transport Company Pvt. Ltd had made payments amounting to Rs. 65, 88, 745/- during the year under consideration under the head of 'Lorry Hire Charges', but had not deducted any tax on the said amount and therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 'Lorry Hire Charges' while holding the assessee liable for violating the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, accepted the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that each Goods Receipt can be said to be a separate contract, if the goods are transported at one time. But if the goods are transported continuously in pursuance of a contract for a specific period or quantity, each Goods Receipt will not be a separate contract and all GRs relating to that period of quantity will be aggregated for the purpose of TDS. DB while hearing D. S. Chauhan, Advocate for the assessee - M/S Upkar Goods Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., and dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue - Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax held that "the findings of facts recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, being the last forum for facts, cannot be gone into by the High Court merely because after re-appreciation of the evidence another view would be possible. In the present case also we find that the CIT (A) has recorded a finding of fact that there was no written or oral agreement between the parties for carriage of goods where the lump sum/total consideration was in excess of Rs. 50, 000/-. On the other hand each GR was a separate contract. This finding of fact was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal."   Share This News with Your Friends on Social Network     Comment on this Story

top stories of the day

Regional bias: Expenditure Reforms Deflate Jammu's Development Influential constable calling shots, ET reporter targeted Blue-eyed rewarded with high pay-grade of Rs 10,000 for loyalty Appointment of Rupesh Kumar unnerves Pappa's loyalists in BJP No preparation time, CUK entrance exams being held hurriedly! PDP encourages anti-nationals, dumps nationalists Drabu's speech cost him dearly: Omar By removing Drabu, Mehbooba shows mirror to BJP With Drabu's exit, lobbying begins within PDP for cabinet berth Under 'PDP scanner', Minister-businessman plead innocence Centre's interlocutor demoralizing army in terrorist-infested Kashmir DSEJ shields ZEO Manjokote, punish teacher for violation of order GMC adopts double yardstick for Influential, Commoner docs Class work, clinics affected at Dental College & Hospital due to indefinite strike of students Aga Syed Rahullaha's Constituency in shambles PDD officers prefer to stay in Jammu SIC directs BDO to provide info on works executed in Marh block JU administration dances to tunes of Gen Secy NTEU

STOCK UPDATE

BSE Sensex NSE Nifty

CRICKET UPDATE