Itxa/417/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds)-I v. M/S. Jet Lite (India) Ltd
High Court
19 Jul 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/417/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds)-I v. M/S. Jet Lite (India) Ltd
Date of order
19 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/417/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds)-I v. M/S. Jet Lite (India) Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 5.In the light of the above, the appeal is 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 417 OF 2015
The Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS)1.. Appellantv/s. M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellan tMr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, J.J.
DATED : 19[th] JULY, 2017
P.C.
1.The present appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10.
2.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal
was not justified in holding that cargo handling charges are in the nature of contract u/s 194C and not fees of professional or technical services covered u/s 194J of the Act. The cargo handling charges requires technically competent and skilled persons to handle highly complicated and mechanized machinery.
3.We have heard learned Counsel for the respondent.
4.It is not disputed that for the Assessment Year 2008-09, between the same parties, similar issue had arisen and the Commissioner had held that the cargo handling charges are in the nature of contract and not fees of professional and technical services. The Revenue did not file any appeal before the Tribunal and had accepted the said order. As such, for the present year, the appellant would not be in a position to deviate from the principles of consistency.
5.In the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(A.M. BADAR, J.)
(S.V. GANGAPURWALA, 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.