Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 293 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) - non deduction on lorry payments - Revenue’s case therefore is that the impugned disallowance deserves to be restored as it has been wrongly deleted during the course of lower appellate proceedings - Held that:- No merit in the instant former substantive ground. We notice first of all that the assessee had merely hired the corresponding 429 lorries whose details have already been given in assessment order. There is no iota of evidence in the case file indicating the assessee firm to have delegated its liability of transportation of goods by way of any contract or sub-contract or that the payees concerned had undertaken such a liability while transporting the relevant goods. As decided in Bhail Bulk Carriers vs ITO [2012 (4) TMI 230 - ITAT MUMBAI] the payment made to the outside parties do not come or fall within the purview of section 194C, as the "carrying out any work - the appellant was not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C(1) for payments made to the outside parties and consequently the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) by the authorities below are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained cash credit addition in assessee’s partners’ capital account - Held that:- various judicial precedents have settled the law that such addition has to be made in the concerned partners’ hands than in case of a firm assessee. We quote one of them CIT vs Metachem Industries (1999 (9) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT) in support. CIT(A) has already granted liberty to the Assessing Officer to assess the very sum in case of assessee’s individual partners’ concerned. We make it clear that there is not an argument raised before us doubting assessee explaining all the impugned money coming from its partners’ capital account only. - Decided against revenue
|