Full Text
Translation output
$-7 & 8 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 535/2012
ITA 535/2012
ITA 537/2012
CIT(TDS) Appellant
Through; Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standmg Counsel.
CIT(TDS) Appellant
Through; Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standmg Counsel.
VERSUS
ELSAMEX INDIA PVT. LTD. Respondent
Through: None.
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
16.04.2013 These appeals by the revenue are directed against the Tribunal's common order dated 16.09.2011 passed in ITA Nos.658 & 659/Del/2011 pertaining to the financial years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. The controversy revolves around therespondents Hability to deduct tax at source inrespect of different transactions. In so far as office repair maintenance is concerned it is the revenue's contention that section 1941 should have been appHed whereas the assessee applied section 194C. A similar contention has been raised with regard to the sub-contractor's (Hot Mix) payment made by the
2013:DHC:7831-DB assessee. There again the revenue contended that the tax deducted at source should have been under section 1941 and not under section 194C of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. Similar arguments have been raised with regard to the other aspects with which we need not concern ourselves as the Tribunal has considered all these aspects as also the agreements between the parties and has held in favour of the assessee. These are pure findings of fact. No question of law, what to speak of any substantial question of law arises for ourconsideration. Noperversity in the findings has beenpointed out either.
The appeals are dismissed.
APRIL 16, 2013 hs A BAl fADAR DURREZ AHMED, J f-l) ••
R.V.EASWAR, J 2013:DHC:7831-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
16.04.2013 These appeals by the revenue are directed against the Tribunal's common order dated 16.09.2011 passed in ITA Nos.658 & 659/Del/2011 pertaining to the financial years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. The controversy revolves around therespondents Hability to deduct tax at source inrespect of different transactions. In so far as office repair maintenance is concerned it is the revenue's contention that section 1941 should have been appHed whereas the assessee applied section 194C. A similar contention has been raised with regard to the sub-contractor's (Hot Mix) payment made by the
2013:DHC:7831-DB assessee. There again the revenue contended that the tax deducted at source should have been under section 1941 and not under section 194C of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. Similar arguments have been raised with regard to the other aspects with which we need not concern ourselves as the Tribunal has considered all these aspects as also the agreements between the parties and has held in favour of the assessee. These are pure findings of fact. No question of law, what to speak of any substantial question of law arises for ourconsideration. Noperversity in the findings has beenpointed out either.
The appeals are dismissed.
APRIL 16, 2013 hs A BAl fADAR DURREZ AHMED, J f-l) ••
R.V.EASWAR, J 2013:DHC:7831-DB
JUDGMENT