9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2006-07, non-compliance with Rule 46A, contractor status of assessee, applicability of section 194C(2).
Non-compliance with Rule 46A: The appellant contended that the CIT(A)'s decision should be quashed due to non-compliance with Rule 46A. However, the Tribunal found that the order of the CIT(A) did not warrant interference on mere technical grounds. Contractor Status: The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is not a contractor. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and concluded that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable when the amounts in question have already been paid, as per the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Applicability of Section 194C(2): The CIT(A) erred in holding that cases of individuals are not covered by section 194C(2) despite a new proviso introduced by the Finance Act, 2002. The Tribunal, based on existing binding decisions, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue as the amounts were already paid, making the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) inapplicable. Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and allowed the Cross Objections of the assessee based on the settled nature of the issue regarding the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) when the amounts have already been paid. The order was pronounced on August 27, 2010.
|
