https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326188 The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by deleting the order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act for AY 2004-05. The Assessing Officer's actions were not justified as the payments to cane-growing farmer members were deemed as purchase price, not subject to section 194C. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Tribunal, upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s decision. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:19:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326188 The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by deleting the order passed u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act for AY 2004-05. The Assessing Officer's actions were not justified as the payments to cane-growing farmer members were deemed as purchase price, not subject to section 194C. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Tribunal, upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326188