9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1330 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - payment made by AOP to the subcontractors - as per revenue assessee had given the contract work to AOP without deduction of tax - disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - AO of the view that execution of contract was the responsibility of assessee and this sub-contracting of the work to one of the members of the AOP cannot be considered as revenue sharing arrangement - HELD THAT - We find the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition had noted that the facts of the present case are identical to that of Swapnali RDS Joint Venture 2014 (12) TMI 320 - ITAT PUNE and he had followed the decision of predecessor in assessee s own case for assessment year 2009-10 2014 (12) TMI 347 - ITAT PUNE . We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2009-10 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 194C for TDS on payments made by the Joint Venture (JV) to its members. 2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made by the JV to its members. 3. Determination of the status of the JV for tax purposes. 4. Double taxation concerns raised by the method adopted by the Assessing Officer (AO). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 194C for TDS on Payments Made by the JV to Its Members: The primary issue was whether the JV was required to deduct TDS under Section 194C when reallocating contract receipts to its members. The AO argued that the JV was responsible for the contract and payments, which should be considered subcontracting, necessitating TDS deduction. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT found that the JV merely acted as a conduit for receiving payments and distributing them to its members based on their work share, without executing any contract work itself. The CIT(A) referenced previous decisions, including the Himachal Pradesh High Court's ruling in *Ramanand & Co.* and the AAR's decision in *Hyundai Rotem Co.*, which established that no subcontract existed between the JV and its members, thus Section 194C was not applicable. 2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-deduction of TDS on Payments Made by the JV to Its Members: The AO disallowed payments made by the JV under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) and ITAT disagreed, stating that since the JV did not incur any expenditure and merely distributed contract receipts among its members, there was no basis for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) emphasized that the JV did not retain any profit or loss and did not book any expenditure, aligning with the principle that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only when an expenditure is incurred by the assessee. 3. Determination of the Status of the JV for Tax Purposes: The AO initially treated the JV as a firm, but the CIT(A) and ITAT upheld the status of the JV as an Association of Persons (AOP). The ITAT noted that the JV consistently filed returns as an AOP, and the status was relevant for determining the applicability of TDS provisions. The CIT(A) highlighted that the JV's formation was for obtaining contracts and distributing payments, not for executing work, which supported its status as an AOP. 4. Double Taxation Concerns Raised by the Method Adopted by the AO: The CIT(A) and ITAT found that the AO's method resulted in double taxation of the same contract revenue. The CIT(A) referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in *Manjunath Motor Service*, which held that such an approach violates the principle against double taxation. The CIT(A) noted that the JV's method of apportioning revenue and TDS credits to its members, who included these in their respective returns, ensured that the same income was not taxed twice. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the JV was not required to deduct TDS under Section 194C when distributing contract receipts to its members, as there was no subcontracting relationship. Consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. The ITAT also confirmed the JV's status as an AOP and addressed concerns of double taxation, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years.
|
