Itl/63/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur v. M/S Shree Shivam Developers, Nagpur
High Court
25 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Itl/63/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur v. M/S Shree Shivam Developers, Nagpur
Date of order
25 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itl/63/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur v. M/S Shree Shivam Developers, Nagpur, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The question whether 13 persons were contractors or they were employees is basically a question of fact which has been answered by holding them as employees and therefore, the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are held to be not applicable.
Decision: Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.63 OF 2010
(Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Nagpur .vs. M/s. Shree Shivam Developers, Nagpur)
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's Orders.
Court's or Judge's orders.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for appellant.
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI& A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 25, 2011.
Heard.
The question whether 13 persons were contractors or they were employees is basically a question of fact which has been answered by holding them as employees and therefore, the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are held to be not applicable. We do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the matter. Hence, the appeal is 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.
EaseValue