9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal by Revenue u/s 253 of the Income-tax Act ('Act') is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short 'the CIT(A)] -24, Mumbai dated 20.06.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The Revenue has raised only one grounds of appeal that: "The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance holding that labour charges payment of Rs. 52,90,424/- is liable for TDS u/s 194C. As the assessee failed to deduct the TDS on such labour payments hence the disallowance was made. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the entire disallowance was deleted holding that the labour representative (Mukadams) did not retain any amount received from assessee and the provision of section 194 are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete evidence. The AO failed to appreciate the various facts and evidence available before him. It was further argued that the Mukadams were summoned u/s 131 during the assessment proceeding and they admit that they are Mukadams-cum-employee of the assessee and they have distributed the cash to the temporary workers/daily wagers under the supervision of assessee. All the Mukadams have filed their a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Audit Report did not mention anything about the nature of payment. Assessee did not file the details of all Mukadams and payment 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
