TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts character from 'payment of consideration' to 'deposit' nor can such arrangement be permitted to stop the levy of the dues to the crown. Here clearly, the amount retained by M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. is a part of the total contract and the provisions of Sec. 194C is clearly attracted to the said amount. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is not sustainable on the facts of the case and consequently stands reversed. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA Nos. 330 & 331/PNJ/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2015 - George Mathan, JM And N. K. Billaiya, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Raghu K Pikale, CA For the Respondent : Mehboob Ali Khan, Ld DR ORDER Per George Mathan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in respect of this ₹ 10 crores which had been retained by M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., the Assessee, being Department of Tourism, Govt. of Goa, had not deducted TDS. Consequently, levy u/s 201(1) was raised alongwith interest u/s 201(1A) for the F.Y 2010-11 and 2011-12. It was the submission by the ld. DR that as the TDS had not been made, the levy was rightly made u/s 201 201(1A) for both the financial years. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT(A) the Assessee had contended that the contract was on No Cure No Pay condition and as the complete scrap had not been lifted, no payment had been made to M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. and consequently, no TDS was liable to be made. It was the submission that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the wreck at the site buried 3 to 6 mtrs. below the sea bed and consequently, the payment has not been disbursed to the contractor, viz. M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. It was the submission that even the ld. CIT(A) has categorically confirmed in pg. 18 of his order that the Assessee, Department of Tourism has neither credited nor paid any amount to the contractor. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be confirmed. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, a perusal of the contract clearly shows that in para 3(e) of the contract, the contractor viz. M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., Bombay has been held to be entitled to sell the scrap generated by way of removal on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
