Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 640 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 192C(2) - assessee had debited certain sub-contract payments to different parties and explanation of the assessee was that the payments were made to labourers, who were not possessing Permanent Account Number (PAN) and due to nonavailability of PAN, TDS could not be deducted - Held that:- assessee had booked the expenses under various sub-heads of the job work carried on by it, but that itself does not establish the case of the Revenue that it is a case of sub-contractor. Merely, in order to better manage its affairs vis-à-vis the different work orders received by it and such works being carried out at different places on account of different works, does not establish that the assessee had transferred any part of its responsibilities and obligations to the said persons. Merely because, the services of the labourers through Jamadar were utilized by the assessee does not establish that there was an understanding for transfer of responsibilities through the said persons to carry out any part of the job work, which was the sole responsibility of the assessee contractor. In the absence of the same, there was no sub-contract between the parties and hence, no requirement for deduction of tax at source where the assessee in order to execute its work orders had engaged the services of Labourers through Jamadar, the same cannot part take the nature of sub-contract in the absence of any obligation or responsibility being fastened upon the said Jamadar or Labourers. There is no merit in the orders of authorities below. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction of ₹ 1,03,72,141/-. In view of our holding that the understanding between the assessee was not sub-contract and there being no requirement of deduction of tax at source, the issue of applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act becomes academic and the same is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made being "gross receipt" - Non dis-closer of receipts - 26AS form e-TDS shows the receipt - Held that:- find merit in the plea of the assessee that in order to execute any work contract, the assessee has to incur certain expenditure in order to earn the said remuneration. In respect of the said contract with M/s. Flagship Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the gross receipts for the year under consideration were ₹ 1,55,42,485/- and the entire receipts cannot be income of the assessee. We find no merit in the plea of the authorities below that the total expenditure has been booked by the assessee, in the absence of any details being brought on record to the effect. Accordingly, we are of the view that the expenditure relatable to such receipts is duly allowable in the hands of the assessee and the entire receipts cannot be brought to the tax in the hands of the assessee. In the entirety of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that estimation of income has to be made on account of such receipts by applying NP rate of 20% as against the plea of the assessee that NP rate of 10% be applied. The assessee failed to bring on record the complete evidence in this regard and accordingly, we are constrained to estimate the income in the hands of the assessee by applying NP rate of 20%. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Interest under s. 234B - Held that:- Tax at source had been deducted out of the receipts arising to the assessee for the year under consideration. However, the said tax at source was not sufficient to take care of tax liability of the assessee and the assessee deposited the balance tax due. Since there was default in the payment of advance tax, the assessee was held to be liable for charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] has held the charging of interest under section 234B of the Act is consequential in nature and we find no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard - Decided against assessee.
|