TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eiving payments against the work done by the members of AOP. The said payment was to be distributed in the agreed ratio between the two members of the AOP for carrying out the work. The Co-ordinate Bench held no deduction of TDS is warranted on the payments between the assessee and its members and deleted the addition made by the AO for violation u/s. 40(A)(ia) of the Act by placing reliance in the case of M/s. Swapnali RDS Joint Venture [ 2014 (12) TMI 320 - ITAT PUNE] . CIT(A) correctly held that on verification of agreement between the members and held that the assessee was formed only to procure work contract and members therein executed the work in accordance with the memorandum of understanding as per their own risk, held the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of Rs. 2,91,670/- which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 04-11-2009. Thereafter, the said assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the reasons of which the AO reproduced the at pages 1 and 2 of the assessment order. On perusal of the same, we note that the AO found an amount of Rs. 3,27,97,031/- was debited to the profit and loss account and credited to the account of the members of the assessee. For non-deduction of TDS on such payment to members, the AO added an amount of Rs. 3,27,97,030/- to the total income of the assessee for non-deduction of tax u/s. 194C of the Act. We note that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained that the assessee was formed as a joint ventu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent from para 6.11 of the impugned order. Further, the ld. AR placed on record order dated 28-11- 2014 passed by this Tribunal in batch of cases, lead case being Shraddha Mahalaxmi Joint Venture in ITA No. 942/PN/2013 and submits that the facts and circumstances of the said case are identical to the facts of the present case and referred to para 10 of the said order. On perusal of the same, we note that the issue raised therein is as same as the issue raised in the present appeal where an amount was disallowed for violation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee therein also an AOP had received contracts which in turn was executed by the two members of the AOP. A contention was raised that the said assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
