https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352860 The dominant issue was whether items sold as rags/wipers/chindi constituted "scrap" under Expln. (b) to s.206C, so as to trigger liability to collect TCS and interest under s.206C(7). HC held that "scrap" covers waste arising from manufacture/mechanical working that is "not usable as such"; the assessee's goods were manufactured products usable as such by purchasers for further manufacture, and therefore fell outside s.206C. Accordingly, the Tribunal's finding that no TCS/interest liability arose was affirmed and the Revenue's challenge failed. A secondary issue on alleged breach of r.46A(3) was rejected because the additional evidence (photographs/samples) was clinching, making remand to the AO unnecessary. en-us Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352860 The dominant issue was whether items sold as rags/wipers/chindi constituted "scrap" under Expln. (b) to s.206C, so as to trigger liability to collect TCS and interest under s.206C(7). HC held that "scrap" covers waste arising from manufacture/mechanical working that is "not usable as such"; the assessee's goods were manufactured products usable as such by purchasers for further manufacture, and therefore fell outside s.206C. Accordingly, the Tribunal's finding that no TCS/interest liability arose was affirmed and the Revenue's challenge failed. A secondary issue on alleged breach of r.46A(3) was rejected because the additional evidence (photographs/samples) was clinching, making remand to the AO unnecessary. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352860