New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 916 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 916 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Liability to deduct tax at source - whether Tribunal is correct in holding that no contract has existed between assessee AOP and its members and there was no liability on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source on payment to it members? - Held that:- The work was carried out and the same was handed over to the members to enable them to execute the contract. The association has neither kept any commission of its own nor any profit. The associa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t held that section 194C(2) of the Income Tax Act has no application to the facts of the assessee's case. See SMC Ambika case [2015 (7) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]- Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1673 of 2013 - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And N. M. Jamdar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Suresh Kumar For the Respondent : None ORDER P.C This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 13th March, 2013 passed by the Income .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ember of the AOP as per provisions of sec. 2(31), therefore, it is liable to deduct tax on payment made to the members of AOP?" 3. The Respondent-Assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP). For the subject assessment year, the Respondent had filed return of income, declaring 'Nil' income. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Respondent and AOP had failed to deduct tax at source on the payment made by it to its members. This on the ground that the said .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mbika (supra) and held in favour of the assessee therein. Thus, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the above decision of the Tribunal to hold in favour of the Respondent. 5. On further appeal by the Revenue, the impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). It also records that the payment made by AOP to its members was not a payment to subcontractors. Therefore, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are inapplicable. Thus, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. 6. Mr. Suresh Kumar, l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version