|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1237 Records
-
2014 (3) TMI 959
Unexplained cash found during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Assessing Officer ignored the details and explanation submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and wrongly observed that the assessee had failed to submit explanation and bifurcation for additional income of ₹ 24 lakh. Further AO ignored and not considered details and explanation submitted by the assessee in reply to questionnaire dated 15.10.2010 which is not a fair practice. On the other hand, from the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), we clearly observe that the he had decided the issue in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition on logical conclusion by holding that when the assessee has himself voluntarily offered an amount of ₹ 24 lakh as his additional income from undisclosed sources, then without any further evidence on record to prove that this disclosed amount of ₹ 24 lakh does not include within itself the cash found of ₹ 10,50,000, the Assessing Officer does not have sufficient ground to make further addition to the income of the assessee as it would result in taxing the same cash twice, firstly by the appellant voluntarily offering the addition of ₹ 24 lakh and secondly by treating the same cash amount of ₹ 10,50,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. - Decided against revenue.
-
2014 (3) TMI 958
Addition on deposits in Bank accounts to the income of the appellant - Held that:- Assessing Officer rightly held that the amount of ₹ 17,63,318/- was unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable and tenable to justify and explain these unexplained cash deposits in the SB account of the assessee. At the same time, we take cognizance of this legal proposition that in this situation, the entire amount of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee because the possibility of rotation of same cash amount as deposits and withdrawals cannot be ruled out and, in this situation, the principle of peak credit addition is applicable.
Assessee submitted that the bank accounts in question for both deposits and withdrawals, the same funds are circulated and hence only peak credit should be brought to tax. On this alternative argument and submissions of the assessee, ld. DR though not conceded the arguments of the assessee but ultimately agreed that only peak credit is to be taxed, hence, we hold that only peak credit appearing in the respective bank account of the assessee can be brought to tax as there is rotation of the same funds. Hence, we set aside the issue of computation of peak credit to the file of Assessing Officer for bringing the same to tax. - Decided partly in fvaour of assessee for statical purposes.
-
2014 (3) TMI 957
Disallowance u/s 43B - Held that:- An explanation was sought from the assessee in respect to non-payment of outstanding service tax as on 31.03.2008, and since it was found by the AO that an amount of ₹ 11,72,233/- (service-tax) which was due to be paid before the due date of filing of return of income had been remitted after the due date. To this query the assessee had explained that due to clerical mistake this amount was not added to the income of the assessee company at the time of filing of the income tax return. - explanation given by the assessee in any manner amounts to an admission to tax the said out-standing service tax. The claim of the assessee throughout was that the service tax expenditure has not been debited in P&L Account and since the assessee has not claimed the said amount as expenditure, the question of disallowance u/s 43B of the Act does not arise. We find force in the said contention of the ld AR and we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the said claim of the assessee that no such expenditure has been debited in its P&L Account, and if the Assessing Officer finds the said claim of the assessee as correct then the question of disallowance u/s 43B does not arise and consequently the Assessing Officer shall delete the said addition and pass fresh assessment order in this respect in accordance to law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 956
Revision u/s 263 - De novo assessment - assessment of rental income from business centre received by the assessee from HDFC Bank Ltd. - AO failed to make the necessary enquiries for calculating the fair market rental value of the property in question - Held that:- AO instead of making enquiries as per the directions given by the ld. Commissioner vide his order passed under section 263, by relying upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trivoly Investment & Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. (2003 (6) TMI 463 - ITAT MUMBAI) assessed the income taking into account the reasonable interest on the security deposits being usu-fructuous of the property. In our view, the approach adopted by the AO in the de novo assessment was not proper.
It can be said to be a case where the AO did not properly comply with the directions while making de novo assessment. It may be observed that while making de novo assessment, though the AO was required to make necessary enquiries as directed by the ld. Commissioner vide his order under section 263 but, at the same time the AO was also at liberty to take into consideration the other facts and circumstances and the case law, if any, available before him. So taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, in our view, it will be fit if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (3) TMI 955
Unexplained income - Held that:- Limit of gross receipts/turnover has been fixed under the provisions of section 44AD which in this case for assessment year 2006-07 was ₹ 40,00,000/-. Hence the income to be assessed on presumptive basis must be in consonance with the gross receipts of total turnover which according to the provisions of the section 44AD is taken at 8%. The conclusion is that though the assessee may claim that it has earned the income less than the 8% of the total turnover yet, if it does not maintain any books of account, still it is bound to offer the income at the rate of 8% of the total turnover/gross receipts. However, the assessee is precluded from claiming that it has in fact earned the income higher than 8% and it has been so declared by it also, but it is absolved any liability of paying the tax on the additional income but only on the income arrived at the rate of 8% of the total turnover.
Though there is no necessity to maintain accounts in case of furnishing return under section 44AD yet, if the assessee has maintained any accounts and has furnished the same with the return of income, like the capital account of the partners in the case in hand, the AO can examine said accounts and if he finds that there is an introduction of unexplained cash in the capital accounts of the assessee, he would be justified to ask the assessee to explain the source of such credits and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the AO will be justified in adding such sum into the income of the assessee. - AO found unexplained cash introduced in the capital account of the partners. The said capital accounts were also filed with the return of income furnished under section 44AD. The ld. CIT(A) from the explanation offered in the case of Shri Ishwar Shivgan Patel was satisfied regarding the source of cash introduced into the capital account of the partners of the firm and hence he deleted the additions. However, the assessee firm since have failed to explain regarding the introduction of cash in the account of Shri Shivgan Jetha Patel, hence he rightly confirmed the addition on account of unexplained introduction of cash in that account. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 954
Determination of arm's length price - 'whether the assessee has international transactions with the AE - Held that:- A perusal of the draft assessment order dated 05-12-2011 shows that the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee has entered into international transactions worth more than ₹ 35.00 Crores with AE and referred the case to TPO to determine the ALP of the international transaction. The assessee objected to the findings of Assessing Officer with regard to transaction with AE. Before the TPO, the assessee vide letter dated 21-03-2011 categorically stated that the assessee does not have any AE relationship as defined u/s.92A of the Act in the Financial Year 2007-08 with M/s. Oren Hydro Carbon Middle East Incorporation. - This clearly shows that the TPO has not applied his mind to the objection raised by the assessee before proceeding with the determination of ALP - perusal of the orders of the authorities below show that the Assessing Officer has formed his opinion that the assessee has international transactions with its AE on the basis of information available on the website of the assessee and overseas company. The Assessing Officer has not ascertained from documents on record, whether the overseas enterprises is AE of the assessee in the AY under consideration - question whether there is a relationship of AE or not in AY.2008-09 needs re-determination on the basis of the documentary evidence - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 953
Deduction towards market research expenses under section 37(1) - Capital expenditure or Revenue expenditure - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee is not a manufacturer but a trader only. The activity of the assessee, being the purchase and further sale of equipment and earning of commission upon such sales cannot be said in any way to be manufacturing activity but a trading activity only. The market research was done by the assessee for the betterment and expansion of its trading business. The expenditure incurred on the market research by a trader cannot be said to have brought into existence anything of enduring benefit in the sense of a capital asset. In view of the settled position of law on this issue as laid down by the hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta in the cases of CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT v. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd [1989 (2) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA High Court] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 952
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ssessee has set off the unabsorbed depreciation and business losses against the income under the head "Capital gains" - Held that:- since Shri Krishan Kumar Mangal died may be his young son was not fully conversant with the affairs of the firm and in the absence of tax consultant who also died he was perhaps wrongly advised to make a claim for set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. It is a settled law that a person cannot be punished for the mistakes committed by counsel for the assessee or his advisors. On the overall circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty and accordingly we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 951
Classification of income - Agricultural income or capital gain - Sale of mahogany trees - Held that:- mahogany trees are planted as shadow trees and grew on their own without any human interference or human effort. Therefore, the mahogany trees grew naturally even though they were planted as shadow trees. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no cost of acquisition or improvement on such trees. Hence, the computation provision fails. Once the computation provision fails for computing the capital gains under the Income-tax Act, there cannot be any levy of capital gains tax. However, in this case, the assessee is not challenging the estimation of capital gains at 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds. The assessee's claim is that the entire income is agricultural income. This claim of the assessee as agricultural income cannot be correct in view of the judgments of the apex court referred in [1981 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court]. Since the assessee is not challenging the treatment of 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds as capital gain, the Revenue may not have any grievance in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Appeal of Revenue has no merit - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (3) TMI 950
Cancellation of registration certificate - Insufficient reasons given - Held that:- On going through the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, we are of the view that these reasons are not sufficient enough so as to call the order as "reasoned order". - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 949
Recovery of tax dues – Liability of Director - Provision to recover company tax dues from the personal assets of the Director – Held that:- Judgment in M/s Meekin Transmission Ltd., Kanpur Nagar vs. State of U.P. and others [2008 (2) TMI 406 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] followed – Company has a separate juristic personality and there is no provision in the U.P. Trade Tax Act under which the dues of the dealer Company could be recovered from the personal assets of a Director - Recovery has been issued against the Company, showing the name inter alia of the petitioner as a proprietor – No need to interfere with the enforcement of the recovery citation against the Company and this judgment is confined only in respect of the enforcement of the recovery citation against the personal assets of the petitioner – Petition allowed and set aside the recovery citation only insofar as it operates against the personal assets of the petitioner – Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 948
Initiation of proceeding and issuance of notice u/s 21 (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Re-opening of assessment order – Whether a complete assessment under the Act could be reopened and any case for reopening the assessment u/s 21(1) is made out after prescribed period when that period has been enlarged by amending the law - whether it is a case of change of opinion – binding force of per incurium judgment - Held that:- Decisions in Binani Industries Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Vi Circle, Bangalore [2007 (4) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Additional Commissioner (Legal) and another Versus Jyoti Traders and another [1998 (11) TMI 531 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed – By virtue of Section 21(2) and the proviso added to it, it is clear that the CST could authorize making of assessment or reassessment after the expiration of 6 years from such year, i.e upto 31.03.1999 or March 31,2002 whichever is later - It is immaterial if a period for assessment or reassessment u/s 21(2) before the addition of the said proviso had expired - Notice to the assessee follows the authorisation by the CST - A fiscal statute can have retrospective operation - If we accept the interpretation given by the respondents, the proviso added to Section 21(2) providing limitation up to 31.03.2002 becomes redundant - Proviso now added to Section 21(2) does not put any embargo on the CST not to reopen the assessment if period had expired before the proviso came into operation - To reassure oneself, one may go into the intention of the legislature in enacting such provision –thus, the impugned notice issued is well within time.
While delivering the judgment the DB in M/s Prag Ice and Oil Mills and others Vs. Additional Commissioner of Trade Tax, Aligarh Zone and another; 2008 have not noticed the retrospectivity of the provisions contained in the proviso added to section 21(2) and the amended Ist proviso added on 5.3.2001 as a whole as interpreted by Apex Court in M/s Binani Industries Limited case(Supra) and Jyoti Traders case (Supra) as such the judgment in Prag Ice and Oil Mills case (Supra) being per incuriam have no binding force and are not binding precedent - Decided against assessee.
The notice under section 21 has been issued without any fresh material but not on account of change of opinion - Initial opinion while passing the original assessment order was to grant exemption on such sale of scooters has not been changed while issuing the notice but on the same principles it was found that exemption has wrongly allowed to the extent of ₹ 97,02,050.65 which ought to be taxed - So far as this calculation of total amount of 270 certificates are concerned, the correctness of the same has not been disputed by the petitioner - In view of the factual matrix of this case the AC was having well founded reason to believe for issuing impugned notice and fall within the ambit of section 21(1), in limb-IV – Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 947
Period of limitation for filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether the order of dismissal of appeal is time barred by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in the eyes of law or not - Held that:- They have received the order on 14.02.2013. As they have not received the order before that, and the case law relied by the appellant in Wellman Hindustan Ltd. (2009 (6) TMI 664 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) where the copy of the order was tendered physically and same was received by someone. Same is the contention of the appellant in the matter in hand, and in support of the same, they have filed an affidavit. When an affidavit has been filed by the appellant and same has not been contravened by the department, affidavit is having an evidential value. Accordingly, I hold that appeal is filed by the appellant within time - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 946
Demand of service tax - Rent a cab service - Held that:- Though the service tax on rent-a-cab has been introduced since 16.07.1997 and the period of dispute in this case is 2002-2003, it is seen that the contract of the BSNL with the respondent is silent about service tax and as such, it is not in dispute that BSNL were not paying service tax to the respondent along with the vehicle hire charges. Moreover, during the period of dispute, there was confusion on the point as to whether service tax under the Heading Rent-a-Cab Scheme Operators Service under Section 65(105)(o) read with Section 65(91) and 65(20) & 65 (71) would be attracted when vehicles are supplied along with drivers and the charges are on the basis of distance travelled by the vehicle, as the Tribunal in the case of Kuldeep Singh Gill reported in [2005 (5) TMI 353 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held that in such a case, when the vehicle supplier is paid on the basis of distance as per rate sheet, service tax under rent-a-cab operator’s service would not attracted.
When there was lack of clarity about the scope of the rent-a-cab operator’s service covered by Section 65(105)(o) and the respondent in this case is an individual who in terms of his contract with BSNL was supplying vehicles and charging for the same on kilometer basis and when the respondent’s contract with BSNL did not mention any service tax, and this is not case a case where the Appellant as service provider while collecting the service tax from the BSNL did not pay the same to the Government, it cannot be said that the respondent was aware of the service tax liability and had deliberately evaded the payment of tax. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order waiving the penalty on the respondent under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (3) TMI 945
Denial of refund claim - Refund on monthly basis as per the provisions contained in Notification No.5/2006-C.E.(N.T.) dt. 14.03.2006 and refund claims for the period April 2007 & May 2007 - Held that:- It is evident from the above provisions that refund claims under this notification are required to be filed once in a quarter. However, a proviso is also existing that is case of EOU such refund claims may be submitted for each calendar month. The word used in the relevant proviso is 'may' and not 'shall' which means that EOU's are given an additional facility that such refund claims could be filed on monthly basis. But such a proviso does not exclude EOU's from the fact that quarterly refund claims under the notification cannot be filed by them. Commr.(A) order to that extent is required to be set aside.
Whether non filing of monthly refunds will make such refund claims time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- Commr.(A) has not discussed this aspect at all and has only held that refund filed by the appellant is time barred. It is observed from the main body of Notification No.5/2006-C.E.(N.T.) dt. 14.03.2006 that the same is issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and does not link this refund procedure in any way to the provisions of relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No time limit has been prescribed in this notification also as to within which time the refund claims (monthly basis or quarterly basis) are required to be filed. In view of the above and the case laws relied upon by the appellant, it has to be held that time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will not be applicable to the refund claims filed under Notification No.5/2006-C.E.(N.T.) dt. 14.03.2006 which is issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 944
Issues:
1. Whether service tax should be paid on the value inclusive of the value of goods in a case where a dealer of motor cars provides free services to buyers and charges for material used and services rendered to the manufacturer.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai dealt with the issue of service tax liability in a scenario where a dealer of motor cars provided free services to buyers and charged for material used and services rendered to the manufacturer. The applicant had paid service tax on the value of services but not on the value of goods. The Revenue contended that service tax should be paid on the value inclusive of the goods. A demand was raised and confirmed for a specific period. The applicant cited precedents where the Tribunal had granted unconditional stays in similar matters.
The Revenue argued that there was no sale of components in the present case, referring to a decision by the West Zonal Bench of the Tribunal in a related matter. The Tribunal noted a previous case involving M/s. Seva Automotive Pvt. Ltd. where a stay order was granted, and the matter was remanded. Following this precedent, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit for admission of the appeal. The Tribunal decided to stay the collection of dues arising from the impugned order until the appeal was disposed of, indicating that the question of remitting the matter back would be addressed during the appeal hearing.
This judgment provides clarity on the application of service tax in cases involving the provision of free services by dealers and the charging of material costs. It underscores the importance of precedents in determining tax liabilities and the Tribunal's discretion in granting stays and waivers pending appeal hearings. The decision to stay the collection of dues reflects a balanced approach to ensure fairness and justice in tax matters.
-
2014 (3) TMI 943
Validity of Notice u/s 148 of the Act - Reassessment of proceedings - Whether the reasons supplied by the AO to the assessee were tangible materials to proceed with the re-assessment proceedings or re-assessment proceedings have been initiated only on mere change of opinion – Held that:- One of the purposes of Section 147, appears to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say "you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing". It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude.
The decision in Krishna Pvt. Ltd. Etc. V. Income-tax Officer and others [1996 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] followed – if it is found that either on account of an omission of failure of the assessee to fail the return or on account of his omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year the Income Tax Officer is entitled to re-open the assessment in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act - he can issue the notice u/s 148 proposing to re-open the assessment only where he has reason to believe that on account of either the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file the return or on account of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file the return or on account of the omission of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income has escaped assessment.
In Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court] it has been held that if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment - both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147 - So long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the AO is free to initiate proceeding under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued - Issuance of notice u/s 148 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction - at this stage, the notice issued u/s 148 cannot be interfered by the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction – the observations are confined only to issuance of notice u/s 148 and be not treated any expression of opinion on merits of the claim of the assessee – Decided against Assessee.
-
2014 (3) TMI 942
Allowability of deduction – Delayed payment of PF & ESIC - Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the payment of PF & ESIC made beyond due dates the filing of ROI are allowable as deduction – Held that:- The decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] followed - Employer’s contribution to such funds is decided in favour of assessee - employee’s contribution is provident fund and ESIC is concerned – the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] followed – By deleting Second Proviso to section 43B by Finance Act, 2003, it cannot be said that Section 36(1) (va) is amended and/or explanation below clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 is deleted, which is with respect to employees' contribution – Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (3) TMI 941
Computation of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act – Treatment of Receipts – Sale of DEPB scrips – Held that:- The decision in M/s Topman Exports Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [2012 (2) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - DEPB has direct nexus with the cost of imports for manufacturing an export product, any amount realized by the assessees over and above the DEPB on transfer of the DEPB would represent profit on the transfer of DEPB and while the face value of the DEPB will fall under clause (iiib) of Section 28, difference between the sale value and the face value of the DEPB will fall under clause (iiid) of Section 28 – Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (3) TMI 940
Taxability 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.
............
|
9911796707
