2009 (9) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DENT: This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 2005-2006. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of purchasing jute bags from Calcutta and selling them. 2. The first issue in the appeal covered by the ground nos.1 to 7 is that the departmental authorities are not justified in disallowing the transport charges of Rs. 1,72,200/- paid by the assessee. The Asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds. 3. It is the contention of the assessee that the transporters were engaged by agents in Calcutta and the assessee was merely paying the transport charges to them and that there was no transport contract between the assessee and the transporters named above. It was therefore submitted that there was no liability to deduct tax under Section 194C. We find that the contention is correct. At pag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18 and 19 do not show that there was any contract for transport between the assessee and the transporters. These are single trips. Circular No.715 dated 8-8-1995 issued by the CBDT shows that each goods receipt can be considered to be a separate contract if the goods are transported at one time. This requirement is satisfied as can be seen from the bills issued by the transporters. The order of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid on the deposits made by Jitendra R. Patel (individual). The AO has taken the view that the assessee failed to deduct tax from the interest payment as required by Section 194A and therefore the interest cannot be allowed as a deduction, having regard to the prohibition contained in section 40(a)(ia). The assessee's contention before us is that Jitendra Patel is a partner in the assessee firm a....