Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ltu,Chennai v. M/S.apex Laboratories Ltd76,C.p.ramasamy Road,Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.11.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMand THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR T.C.A.No.236 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU,Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Apex Laboratories Ltd76,C.P.Ramasamy Road,Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, dated20.01.2011 in ITA No.438/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha Learned Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr.V.S.Manoj JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) This Tax Case Appeal is filed by the Revenue underSection 260-A of the Act, against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 20.01.2011 in ITANo. 438/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2.Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue and Mr.V.S.Manoj, learned Counsel for therespondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. This tax case appeal filed by the assessee has beenadmitted on 06.07.2011 on the following substantial questions oflaw: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the Assessing Officer was notcorrect in disallowing the printing charges ofRs.86,89,916/- claimed by the assessee invoking theprovisions of Section 40(a)(la) of the Income TaxAct since tax had not been deducted at source asper Section 194C of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in giving the decision mentioned in thepreceding question on wrong assumption of factslike stating that the printing was done on thepacking materials supplied to the assessee whereasthe contract was one for printing brouchers andvisual aid materials?” 4.We have perused the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), dated 27.11.2008 as confirmed by theTribunal. The Commissioner examined the xerox copies of the billsand found that the assessee buys packing material for the purposeof packing the finished goods and in the packing material, thereis some printing work which was held to be incidental to the saleeffected in favour of the assessee. 5.The Commissioner referred to the following decisionsrelied on by the assessee viz., Wadilal Dairy International Ltd.,Vs. Asst. CIT [reported in (2002) 81 ITD 238], Jindal PhotofilmsLtd., Vs. ITO [reported in (2006) 5 SOT 272], Deputy CIT Vs.Reebok India Co. [reported in (2006) 100 TTJ 976], ITO Vs. MillanDiary Foods (P) Ltd [reported in (2006) 105 TTJ 252] & CIT Vs.Dabur India Ltd [reported in (2005) 198 CTR 375] and accordinglyallowed the appeal. The correctness of the order was tested bythe Tribunal and the Tribunal noted that the billing was done ona composite value of packing material without differentiating anyamount for printing done. Further, the Tribunal noted that theassessee has suffered Value Added Tax (VAT) through the purchaseinvoices while buying the printed packing material. Thus, theRevenue's argument was rejected. We are in entire agreement withthe finding recorded by the Tribunal confirming the finding ofthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6.Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissedand the Substantial Questions of Law are answered against theRevenue. No costs. Sd/-Deputy Registrar //True copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarmrmToIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.81288+1cc to Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran, Advocate SR.No.81835T.C.(A).No.236 of 2011GMY(17/12/2018)