Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Revenue's Appeal Dismissed, CIT(A) Order Upheld on Freight Charges & Land Sale Profit</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on both issues. The freight charges were not disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) ... TDS u/s 194C - Deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) - expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head ‘freight charges’- Held that:- As the assessee neither entered into any oral or written agreement with the assessee nor taken vehicles on regular contract basis. The assessee has taken vehicles on mere hire basis to be deployed in the places where he has undertaken transport contract with M/s. ITC Limited. The risk associated with the goods till transportation to the destination is rest with the assessee. The lorry owners/drivers had not undertaken any responsibility of risk in the goods. Therefore, we are of the view that the payments made to lorry owners are not liable for TDS as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act, consequently, the expenditure incurred under the head ‘freight charges’ are not liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee has rightly deleted additions made by the A.O. - Decided in favour of assessee. Computation of capital gain on sale of land - assessable under the head ‘income from business’ or under the head ‘ income from capital gains - application of the provisions of section 50C - Held that:- The income from sale of land is assessable under the head ‘income from business’, but not under the head ‘income from capital gains’. We further observed that the assessee has filed necessary evidences to prove, he had converted his capital asset into stock-in-trade, developed the said land before it was sold. The assessee has computed resultant profit from sale of the land by applying the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act. When the income is computed under the head ‘income from business’, the provisions of section 50C of the Act has no application for determination of full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and also submissions of the assessee rightly directed the A.O. to delete additions made towards computation of capital gains. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of freight charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194C.2. Computation of capital gain on the sale of land and the applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Freight Charges under Section 40(a)(ia) for Failure to Deduct Tax at Source under Section 194C:The assessee, engaged in the transport business, incurred freight charges without deducting tax at source as mandated by Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed these charges, asserting that the payments to lorry owners constituted payments to sub-contractors, thereby necessitating TDS deduction under Section 194C(2). The A.O. based this on the lorry receipts (L/Rs) which indicated that the lorry owners/drivers were responsible for the goods' safety and any associated risks until delivery.The assessee contended that there was no written or oral contract with the lorry owners and that the vehicles were hired on an as-needed basis. The assessee bore the risk of goods during transportation, and the lorry owners did not assume any responsibility beyond safe delivery.The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, noting the absence of a contract and the fact that the lorry owners were hired on a need basis without a formal agreement. The CIT(A) concluded that the provisions of Section 194C were not applicable, and thus, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the payments for hiring vehicles did not fall under the ambit of Section 194C as there was no contract between the assessee and the lorry owners. The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Visakhapatnam decision in Kranti Road Transport Private Limited vs. ACIT and the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT(TDS) vs. United Rice Land Limited, which supported the view that in the absence of a contract, TDS under Section 194C was not required.2. Computation of Capital Gain on Sale of Land and Applicability of Section 50C:The assessee sold land and computed the resultant profit under the head 'income from business' and 'income from capital gains' as per Section 45(2) of the Act, claiming to have converted the land from a capital asset to stock-in-trade. The A.O. disputed this, arguing that the conversion was not substantiated by entries in the financial statements or the tax audit report, and thus, the profit should be assessed under 'capital gains' using the provisions of Section 50C.The CIT(A) found that the assessee had indeed converted the land into stock-in-trade, developed it into plots, and sold them, indicating an intention to commercially exploit the land. The CIT(A) held that the provisions of Section 45(2) were applicable, and the income should be computed accordingly. Consequently, the provisions of Section 50C did not apply as the income was assessable under 'business income.'The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's actions demonstrated an adventure in the nature of trade. The Tribunal referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CIT vs. M. Krishna Rao and the Rajasthan High Court decision in CIT vs. Govind Gruha Nirman Sahakar Samiti Limited, which supported the view that developing and selling land as plots constituted a business activity. Therefore, the income was rightly computed under 'business income,' and Section 50C was inapplicable.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on both issues. The freight charges were not disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) due to the inapplicability of Section 194C, and the profit from the sale of land was correctly computed under 'business income,' excluding the application of Section 50C.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found