Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 904 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Held that: We are aware of the fact that the agreement can be oral but the essence of contract lies on the fact whether assessee had the control of the work i.e. the manner in which the work has to be done. In case it lies with the assessee then it is not the subcontract so as to attract the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act and subsequently the rigour of section 40(a)(ia) would not come into play for executing centring, tiling and fabrication through different persons. In instant case, the control lies with the assessee and the alleged subcontractor are merely executing the work of centring and fabrication under the full control of the assessee itself. Even nomenclature used by parties as subcontract does not change the real spirit of contract. Under facts and circumstances, revenue authorities were not justified in making disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Same is directed to be deleted. Similar disallowance has been made in the year 2006-07. Facts being similar so following same reasoning, disallowance in question are directed to be deleted. Addition on account of long term capital gains resorting to the provisions of section 50C - Held that:- We find that proper opportunity was provided to the assessee to putforth his grievance before the DVO. However, the assessee has not been able to take that opportunity. No other material was placed on record for rebutting the findings of the CIT(A). In view of this, we do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned of the CIT(A) and, accordingly, we uphold the same. Disallowance made out of sand and labour charges, out of petrol expenses and out of telephone expenses - personal expenses - Held that:- AO has made the disallowance on the ground that the element of personal use with regard to telephone, vehicle could not be ruled out. The bills with regard to labour charges were also not fully verifiable. However, to meet the ends of justice, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 50% of the disallowance made by the AO on the ground the disallowance is on the higher side. In view of this, we uphold the same.
|