TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri Chandrakant J. Mandale [ 2015 (4) TMI 1140 - ITAT PUNE ] for the assessment year 2008-09 decided on 10.04.2015, the assesee joint venture cannot be treated as assessee in default . Reverting to the arguments put forth by the Ld. DR regarding distinguishable aspects of the case so far as the facts are concerned, we have perused the orders carefully in the earlier assessment years in assessee‟s own case and the facts are similar in its entirety. We, however, appreciate that on principle; the Ld. DR had fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the decision in assessee‟s own case. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 200/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2019 - SHRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e did not find favour with the Assessing Officer because the Department had not accepted the judgment of the jurisdictional ITAT and had further filed appeal before the Hon‟ble High Court against the Pune ITAT decision in assessee‟s own case on 27.04.2015. Further, the contention of the assessee that the payment made by AOP to its members cannot be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and was also found to be not applicable to the assessee‟s case by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the payment of ₹ 7,24,07,969/- paid by assessee AOP to its member was disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee filed detailed written submissions before the Ld. Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Bhooratnam Company reported at 262 CTR 405 (AP). The question addressed to the High Court was that whether the credit for TDS based on the certificates produced in the name of the joint venture and Directors is not in accordance with Rule 37BA under Income Tax Rules and credit could be denied holding that these do not relate to the assessee firm or company. The Hon ble High Court after reviewing the evidences gave the following finding: 20. The Revenue cannot be allowed to retain tax deducted at source without credit being available to anybody. If the credit of tax is not allowed to the assessee and the joint venture has not filed a return of income then the credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2012-13. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR contended that the case of the assessee is distinguishable in facts. Though principally, he agreed that the case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own cases (supra.) as hereinabove referred. 8. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions, gave considerable thought to the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2012-13. We observe that the Tribunal has held and observed as follows: 10.2 Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shraddha Mahalaxmi Joint Venture and Others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as observed that the strictures of section 40(a)(ia) are diluted in the facts of the case since the payee has admittedly filed its return of income disclosing the impugned receipts and income earned by it embedded in the receipt has been duly offered for taxation. In this view of the matter, the assessee Joint Venture cannot be treated as assessee in default in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 (Del.) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri Chandrakant J. Mandale , ITA No.1708/PN/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 decided on 10.04.2015, the assesee joint venture cannot be treated as asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
