AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Mum/2016, pertaining to the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, which are directed against a common order dated 07/12/2015 passed by the CIT(A) - 22, Mumbai, which in turn arose from two separate orders dated 28/03/2012 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 3. In these appeals, the issue relates to the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 68,69,241/- and Rs. 1,02,28,240/- for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007- 08 respectively. Notably, in the assessments finalized under section 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer made disallowances by invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act were cancelled. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that the order of the Tribunal dated 30/09/2015 (supra) continues to hold the field as it has not been altered by any higher authority, therefore, in our considered opinion, the CIT(A) made no mistake in deleting the penalty made by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Resultantly, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are dismissed. 5. Now, we may take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.1430/Mum/2016, which is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-22, Mum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smotech (India) and Jewel Pharma. From the said parties assessee had purchased goods worth Rs. 97,21,778/-, detailed as under:- (1) VVF Ltd. Rs. 80,45,660/- (2) Suhan Cosmotech (India) Rs. 6,39,028/- (3) Jewel Pharma Rs. 10,37,090/- Total : Rs.97,21,718/- 8. The relevant discussion in the assessment order reveals that following his earlier stand, the Assessing Officer concluded that the agreements of purchase with the aforesaid three parties were in the nature of works contract and not agreements for purchase of goods simpliciter. Therefore, he proceeded to hold that in the absence of any deduction of tax at source, under section 194C of the Act in the context of works contract, the expenditure of purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods by the respective manufacturers. No doubt, the manufacturers are obliged to manufacture products as per the specifications and standards provided by the assessee but it is a case where the contractual obligations are entered into on a principal-to-principal basis. The manufacturers buy raw material and packing material at their own cost and as per their requirements and it is the obligation of the manufacturers to deliver the products as per specifications provided by the assessee. Considering the factual matrix, we find no reason to depart from the earlier finding of the Tribunal with regard to similar contracts which have been held not to be in the nature of work contracts. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we hereby affirm th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2001-02 would form part of the depreciation for assessment year 2002-03 and, therefore, it could be carried forward and set-off without any time limit as per the amended provisions of section 32(2) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), assessee also pointed out that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Times Guaranty Ltd.(2010) 40 SOT 14 was no longer a good law, inasmuch as, the same was contrary to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 354 ITR 244(Guj). The CIT(A) noticed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was clearly supporting the stand of the assessee and, therefore, he allowed....