Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 940 - HC - Income TaxTaxability pertaining to retention money - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on appreciation of correct position of law read along with documentary evidence on record the Tribunal’s ultimate finding and the conclusion of taxability pertaining to retention money for the year under consideration is contrary to settled position of law and against the documentary evidence on record with the result that the ultimate finding and conclusion is vitiated in the eyes of law – Held that:- The test as to whether the income accrued to the assessee is real or hypothetical and whether there is a corresponding liability of the other party to pass on the benefits of duty free import to the assessee even without any imports having been made and the probability or improbability of realisation of the benefits by the assessee considered from a realistic and practical point of view, it is quite clear that in fact no real income but only hypothetical income had accrued to the assessee and Section 28(iv) of the Act would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Essentially, the Assessing Officer is required to be pragmatic and not pedantic. There was no material change by virtue of the amendment in clause 5.4 to the general conditions in so far as the question of accrual of income is concerned - Right to receive the sum was even before the amendment uncertain and therefore contingent - Upon satisfactory completion of several factors, even after the amendment, the same conditions applied - Same uncertainly and unpredictability prevailed - The assessee had no absolute right to receive the amount - SSNNL had no obligation to release the same before completion of warranty period and even thereafter would release the amount only after making permissible adjustments - Mere fact that in the present case no recoveries were made from the bank guarantee or security deposit is of no consequence. Mere fact that the amount was received by the assessee would not mean that income had accrued - Whether income did accrue or not would depend on the fact whether the right to receive said amount had accrued or not - The fact that tax was deducted at source on said amount also would be of no consequence - Tax was deducted by SSNNL - The assessee had no control over such deduction - Merely whether tax was deductible or not would not decide the taxability of certain receipts - the manner in which the assessee accounted for such receipt in its books of account can also not determine its tax liability – Relying upon Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax [Central], Calcutta [1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court] - the expenditure incurred by the assessee could not be proportionately divided into that covering the assessee’s ninety per cent of the bill amount and relatable to the rest ten percent - the Tribunal had committed an error in allowing the Revenue’s appeals – the AO is directed to tax the retention money in the assessment year relevant to the ‘previous year’ in which retention money becomes payable to the appellant as per the terms of the contracts ie., after the defect liability is over and after the Engineer-in-Charge certifies that no liability attaches to the appellant – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|