Commissioner Of Income Taxiv, Nagpur v. Govt. Milk Scheme, Nagpur]With
High Court
18 Sep 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Taxiv, Nagpur v. Govt. Milk Scheme, Nagpur]With
Date of order
18 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Taxiv, Nagpur v. Govt. Milk Scheme, Nagpur]With, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Both the agreements between parties are also looked into by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to find out whether any relation of principal and agent is established on record.
Decision: Appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Income Tax Appeal No. 132 of 2006
-[Commissioner of Income TaxIV, Nagpur Vs. Govt. Milk Scheme, Nagpur]With
Income Tax Appeal No. 135 of 2006-[Commissioner of Income TaxIV, Nagpur Vs. Govt. Milk Scheme, Nagpur]
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of or directions and Registrar's orders.
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
Income Tax Appeal No. 132 of 2006:
Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv., for the appellant.Mr. K.P. Dewani, Adv., for respondent.-----
Income Tax Appeal No. 135 of 2006:
Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv., for the appellant.Mr. K.P. Dewani, Adv., for respondent.
-----
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND F.M. REIS, JJ.
DATE : 18[th] September, 2009.
Heard Adv. Mr. Parchure for the
appellant and Adv. Mr. K.P. Dewani for the respondent.
Findings of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal show that respondent-assessee sold milk to milk kiosk owners and charged and recovered entire price in advance. The said milk was then sold by kiosk owners to their customers at more rate and they kept the profit. Both the agreements between parties are also looked into by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to find out whether any relation of principal and agent is established on record. The facts disclosed transaction between two independent principals.
In the circumstances, we do not find any payment of commission by respondent to said owner and as such there was no question of any TDS.
The concurrent findings on record are basically the findings of fact. No Substantial Question of Law arises. Appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
Judge Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.