TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving a clear finding on the factual aspect as to whether sub-sec.4 of sec.80P is applicable to the assessee in the present case or not. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the mater back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes TDS u/s 194C - Proceedings u/s 201(1)& 201(1A) - Held that:- In the present case, as per agreement available in paper book, the first party i.e. the assessee society agreed to purchase 1500 intermittent sites of various dimensions in the proposed layout t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a predetermined price, it cannot be said that such agreement is for carrying out a contract and not a contract of purchase and sale simply because the item to be supplied is to be conforming to certain specified quality and other conditions. Hence, in our considered opinion, in the present case, the agreement of the assessee with Shri Lakshman is for purchase of land with some specific facilities and it is not a contract requiring deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the IT Act, 1961. Thus proceedings u/s 201(1)( 201(1A) of the IT Act are dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.1301, 1307 to 1313(Bang) 2015 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... velopment bank and therefore, the assessee is hit by Sub-sec.4 of Sec.80P of the IT Act and hence, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P but in spite of this, ld. CIT(A) had allowed deduction u/s 80P on the basis of some judicial pronouncements but without giving a finding that the assessee is not hit by sub-sec.4 of Sec.80P and therefore, the order of ld. CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the AO should be restored. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) . 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that a categorical finding has been given by the AO that the assessee is hit by sub-sec.4 of sec.80P of the IT Act and on this actual aspect, there is no finding by the ld. CIT(A) that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht in relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT ITO Ward-16(3) Vs Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., when the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable? 3. Whether the ld. CT(A) was correct in holding that there was no element of contract even though the agreement of the assessee with the developer clearly states that is for procurement of project land and carrying on works such as i) Conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes ii) Obtaining various approvals from concerned authorities, iii) Forming of layout by carrying out civil works like drainage, electricity etc., 4. Whether the ld,. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order rendered in the case of DCIT Vs Accountant General Office Cooperative Society Ltd. in ITA No. 299 to 300/Bang/2005 and 768 to 771/Bang/2009 dated 28.08.2009 and also by the judgments of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs M/s Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society in ITA No. 1260/2006 1275/20016 both dated 10.03.2010 wherein it was held by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court that the assessee is only a purchaser and hence, even if any advance sale consideration is paid by the assessee, no TDS is required to be deducted. Now in the light of these judgments, we examine the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with specific facilities and it cannot be said that this is works contract. For example, if a person A agrees with different person say B to sell and supply certain quantity of specific quality of material at a predetermined price, it cannot be said that such agreement is for carrying out a contract and not a contract of purchase and sale simply because the item to be supplied is to be conforming to certain specified quality and other conditions. Hence, in our considered opinion, in the present case, the agreement of the assessee with Shri Lakshman is for purchase of land with some specific facilities and it is not a contract requiring deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the IT Act, 1961. This view of us is in line with judgment of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
