TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome tax Appellate Tribunal, no question of law as framed in these cases arise. – Appeal of Revenue is dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 7-8-2003 - Judge(s) : V. K. BALI., JASBIR SINGH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by V.K. BALI J.-By this common order we propose to dispose of Income tax Cases Nos. 33, 36, 39, 40, 46, 48, 55, 56 and 57, all of the year 1989 as common questions of fact and law arise in all these cases. For facility of reference, the facts are being taken from I.T.C. No. 33 of 1989. This is a petition under section 256(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short "the 1961 Act"), for the assessment year 1981-82. The petitioner herein seeks determination of the following questions, which are stated to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have completed constructions and received payments in lieu thereof. The assessee being the contractor received the contract from MES, from which the tax was deducted by the former under the 1961 Act. The assessee did not deduct any tax from the payments made to MHT, SMT and Ess Kay Construction Co., Unit-IT, as is required by the provisions of section 194C(2) of the 1961 Act. On the premise aforesaid, the Income tax Officer held the assessee to be a defaulter under section 201(1A) of the 1961 Act and levied penalty under section 221 of the 1961 Act vide three separate orders of default dated February 7, 1985. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals, which were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j Hemant Trust and M/s. Shalini Mohit Trust had any contract with the assessee, i.e., the main firm. It was only by way of mutual arrangements that the aforesaid concerns executed some works and received payment in lieu thereof. It is not denied that so far as the assessee is concerned, with regard to work executed by it or by its sister concerns, tax was paid under section 194C(1) of the 1961 Act. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion in I.T.A. No. 646, it has been mentioned that the arrangement was between Ess Kay Construction Company (Ganga Nagar Works) on the one hand and Shalini Mohit Trust on the other hand as is apparent from page No. 24 of the paper book. Ess Kay Construction Company was not registered with MES authorities and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
