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

2015 (10) TMI 1707 - ITAT KOLKATA

2015 (10) TMI 1707 - ITAT KOLKATA - [2015] 43 ITR (Trib) 493 (ITAT [Kolk]) - Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - assessee stated that the nature of payments made to eight parties was similar to the 15 parties in respect of whom details were submitted before the Assessing Officer - Held that:- We observe that the nature of activity carried out by the assessee is not disputed and the nature of payments made to the said eight parties was similar to the 15 parties, therefore, in the interest of justice, we re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount of ₹ 6,64,535/- related to improvement of height of factory shed whereas balance amount of ₹ 7,14,879/- was incurred on improvement of floor, and walls of shed. However, since the assessee had not given any basis or supporting material for such bifurcation and even exact nature of the said miscellaneous work had also not been elaborated, therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly held that the expenditure was capital in nature, as it augmented the production capacity as a result .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) that the transactions were for supply of goods fabricated as per the assessee’s requirements. These were not work contracts and therefore, not liable for TDS under section 194C. We, therefore, confirm the finding of ld. CIT(Appeals). - Decided against revenue.

Disallowance of payment in nature of salary and not professional fee liable to deduction of TDS u/s 194J - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- In the course of appellate proceedings it had been stated before the ld. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment was in nature of salary and not professional fee liable to deduction under section 194J.- Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 989/KOL/ 2012, I.T.A. No. 889/KOL/ 2012 - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra and Shri Mahavir Singh, JJ. For The Department : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. D.R., For The Assessee : None (Adjournment rejected) ORDER Per S.V. Mehrotra: The appeal being ITA No. 989/KOL/2012 filed by the Revenue and the appeal being ITA No. 889/KOL/2012 filed by the assessee are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nature of salary and not professional fee liable to deduction of TDS u/s 194J. 3. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following effective grounds of appeal:- (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred and not justified in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 17,09,696/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law in confirming disallowance of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f income of Rs. NIL, which was subsequently revised to ₹ 81,80,240/-. From the accounts submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted certain violation/lapses in regard to TDS. He observed that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source under section 194C in respect of 28 parties mentioned at pages 1 & 2 of the assessment order. The assessee submitted Form 16A in respect of six parties for deduction of tax at source. Apart from this, in respect of 15 parties, as noted at page .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sing Officer further disallowed ₹ 1,37,941/- claimed as revenue expenditure in respect of expenses incurred under the head interior & design treating the same as capital in nature. The Assessing Officer further disallowed ₹ 1,20,000/- for payment of design and drawing made to Apka Design & Drawing because the assessee failed to offer any explanation. This amount was also disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Ld. CIT(Appeals) while partly allowing the assessee s ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the nature of payments made to eight parties was similar to the 15 parties in respect of whom details were submitted before the Assessing Officer. The assessee s claim was gross bills comprised of material cost and job charges. The assessee wanted to submit the bills before the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not admit the additional evidence as the assessee could not point out as to why these bills could not be submitted before the Assessing Officer. 8. After hearing the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing to any conclusion. Resultantly Ground No. 1 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Brief facts apropos Ground No. 2 are that the ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the expenditure was incurred on improving, i.e. increasing the height of factory shed and, therefore, this could not be called to be in nature of repairs. He relied on the decision in the case of Humayun Properties Ltd. -vs.- CIT reported in 44 ITR 73 (Cal.), Ratlam Bone Mills -vs.- CIT reported in 147 ITR 148 (MP), Prestige Food .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 7,14,879/- was incurred on improvement of floor, and walls of shed. However, since the assessee had not given any basis or supporting material for such bifurcation and even exact nature of the said miscellaneous work had also not been elaborated, therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly held that the expenditure was capital in nature, as it augmented the production capacity as a result of the expenditure, factory shed had become larger which could support higher production and give advantage .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ous persons as per its requirement and material for the same was also purchased by the said persons. Thus, the assesese had actually not given any contract for job work. Rather, it purchased the goods fabricated as per its requirements. The concerned persons were asked to give break up between material and job charges for keeping a check on the amount charged by them. The bills prepared by those persons gave description as fabrication work at the assessee s premises for which material cost and 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

by the assesese. Therefore, the nature of transaction was supply of goods fabricated as per the assessee s requirement. He further observed that the bills raised by various labour contractors did not indicate that there was any running contract for some specified quantity, period, etc. He further pointed out that labour charges for each bill were of small amount mostly under ₹ 10,000/-. He, therefore, held that job work charges of ₹ 14,12,322/- were not liable to TDS under section 19 .....

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