TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the hands of joint venture/assessee. Such guess work would not have been essential, had the assessee actually received the amounts and those amounts would have been reflected in the books of account. The department would have procured some material to show receipts by assessee towards contract. There is no finding of receipt of any income by joint venture assessee on account of said contract. The finding of fact, therefore, reached by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)I, Nagpur [CIT(A)] and sustained by ITAT, cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial questions of law arising out of impugned order - Decided against assessee. - I T A No.44 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2015 - B.P. Dharmadhikari And A.P. Bhangale, JJ. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited and in return, said SMS Infrastructure Limited has disclosed that income. The said return was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment made under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found that, therefore, some income could not have been taxed again in the hands of joint venture/assessee. 4] Efforts of Advocate Shri Anand Parchure is to demonstrate that the contract was entered by the joint venture, the joint venture has received the consideration and then parted with part of work in favour of one of its constituents namely SMS Infrastructure Limited. By inviting our attention to change in the legal position in view of the amendment to Section 3 of the Act of 1961 as compared to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of joint venture/assessee. Such guess work would not have been essential, had the assessee actually received the amounts and those amounts would have been reflected in the books of account. The department would have procured some material to show receipts by assessee towards contract. There is no finding of receipt of any income by joint venture assessee on account of said contract. 8] The finding of fact, therefore, reached by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)I, Nagpur [CIT(A)] and sustained by ITAT, cannot be said to be perverse. 9] In the light of this discussion, we find that the above mentioned questions which ignore this finding of fact does not arise for determination and cannot be said to be substantial questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
