Itxa/1919/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Tds v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd
High Court
18 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1919/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Tds v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd
Date of order
18 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1919/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Tds v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1917 OF 2011INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1919 OF 2011
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1920 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, Pune
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Kirloskar Oil Enginees
..Respondent.
Mr. N.N. Singh for the appellant.
Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2013
P.C. :-
1.In these three appeals for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, following common question of law have been raised for our consideration:-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the provisions of law, the Tribunal was justified in holding
that the transactions between the assessee company and its various contractors were a 'contracts for sale' and not a 'works contract' and therefore the assessee company could not be held liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act ? ”
2.Counsel for the parties state that the issue raised in the above question is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in [2010] 324 324 ITR 199 (Bom) in favour of the respondent-assessee. We also notice that the Tribunal has also followed the above decision in the matter of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra). In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question.
3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
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.