Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 794 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- We find that a categorical finding has been given by the AO that the assessee is hit by sub-sec.4 of sec.80P of the IT Act and on this actual aspect, there is no finding by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is not hit by sub-sec.4 of sec.80P of the IT Act, 1961 and therefore, without a finding for dislodging the objection of the AO regarding the applicability of sub-sec.4 of sec.80P of the IT Act, 1961, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. However, in the facts of the present case, we feel it proper that this matter should go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving a clear finding on the factual aspect as to whether sub-sec.4 of sec.80P is applicable to the assessee in the present case or not. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the mater back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes TDS u/s 194C - Proceedings u/s 201(1)& 201(1A) - Held that:- In the present case, as per agreement available in paper book, the first party i.e. the assessee society agreed to purchase 1500 intermittent sites of various dimensions in the proposed layout to be formed by second party i.e. Shri Lakshman at the rate of 305/- per sq.ft. and the first party has agreed to make an advance payment of ₹ 2.00 Crores to the second party and further payment was to be made in installments. This is true that the land was not owned by the second party at the time of agreement and it was specified in the agreement that the second party was required to acquire the required land and secure either the converted land and secure the approval of the competent authority for use of land for nonagricultural purposes and residential use and also to obtain approval for the layout plan from the competent sanctioning authority and the second party was also required to provide certain specified facilities and amenities in the layout such as wide asphalted roads, water and sanitary connections, electrification with overhead lines and transformers, adequate street lights, dedicated Telephone exchange, milk booths, KPTCL/BESCOM extension counter, Police outpost, Bus terminus, shopping arcades including vegetable market etc., along with overhead tank/sump tank connected to bore wells in order to provide adequate water supply and roadside tree plantation with tree guards etc. but this is also true that the agreement is for purchase and sale of land with specific facilities and it cannot be said that this is works contract. For example, if a person A agrees with different person say ‘B’ to sell and supply certain quantity of specific quality of material at a predetermined price, it cannot be said that such agreement is for carrying out a contract and not a contract of purchase and sale simply because the item to be supplied is to be conforming to certain specified quality and other conditions. Hence, in our considered opinion, in the present case, the agreement of the assessee with Shri Lakshman is for purchase of land with some specific facilities and it is not a contract requiring deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the IT Act, 1961. Thus proceedings u/s 201(1)( 201(1A) of the IT Act are dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee
|