TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . All the payments made to the laborers were below to ₹ 50,000/-. There is no evidence that labour were engaged on regular basis, which may give rise to the fact that there was a contract in existence and deleted the disallowances. We have seen that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order after considering the entire fact, affidavit of Mukadams and the nature of payment. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No.5578/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2017 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revenue by : Shri Goli Srinivas Rao (CIT-DR) Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivram Rahul Hakani (AR) Order Unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentative (Mukadams) did not retain any amount received from assessee and the provision of section 194 are not attracted. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and perused the material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the payments made to the so-called Mukadams were payment to contractors who were supplying the labour to the assessee. The ld. DR for the Revenue further argued that the AO made the disallowance as the same was the contractual payment. On the other hand the ld. AR of the assessee argued that the AO erred in appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made to them and thus, the assessee could not establish that there was no contract between the assessee and Mukadams. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that the AO did not establish the aspect by bringing any evidence that assessee made the payment in pursuance of a contract and simply jumped to the conclusion that these payments were contractual payment despite the deposition (affidavit) of Mukadams confirming the fact that they were employee of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that he did not find any indication which may suggest that the payments were made under the contract, in fact the payment were received by the laborers from the assessee. All the payments made to the laborers were below to ₹ 50,000/-. There is no evidence that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
