2014 (2) TMI 1183 - AT - Income Tax

Diversion of JV receipts - whether the income of the Joint Venture (JV) is to be taxed in the hands of JV and not in the hands of its members - Held that - The consistent and concurring opinions of CIT (A) and ITAT were that the JV was formed only to secure the contract in terms of which the scope of each JV partner s task was distinctly outlined. Further the entire work was split between the two JV partners; they completed the task through sub-contracts and were responsible for the satisfaction of the NHAI. Therefore ITAT did not fall into error of law in holding that the JV was not an association of persons and liable to be taxed on that basis. Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition made by AO based on principle of right entity being taxed at the right place.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of two entities for the 2009-10 assessment year. The issue revolves around the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the contention of the Revenue that the right entity should be taxed at the right place. The Appellant argued that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee based on a previous order for the 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 assessment years. The AR pointed out that the CIT(A) had relied on a judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court and the departmental SLP against the decision for the 2004-05, 2005-06 assessment years had been dismissed by the Apex Court. The AR also highlighted that similar appeals for the 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 assessment years had been allowed in favor of the assessee, which was upheld by the ITAT. The Revenue argued that the issue was not covered in favor of the assessee, leading to a further examination of the matter.

Subsequently, the Sr. DR pointed out specific paragraphs from the assessment order and raised arguments based on the different facts considered in the present case compared to previous judgments. The Co-ordinate Bench's order from a previous case was referenced, which emphasized the principle that the income of a Joint Venture (JV) should be taxed in the hands of the JV and not its members. The Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the departmental appeal on identical facts, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions and the dismissal of SLPs filed by the department. The Sr. DR acknowledged that the issue for the 2006-07 to 2008-09 assessment years was considered by the Tribunal and was covered against the Revenue based on the Co-ordinate Bench's order.

In the final analysis, after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals. The Tribunal noted the absence of any distinction on fact or law and, in line with the Co-ordinate Bench's order, upheld the dismissal of the departmental appeals. The judgment was pronounced in open court, confirming the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively discussed the application of the principle of taxing the right entity at the right place based on previous orders and jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the departmental appeals was grounded in the consistency of facts and legal principles across the relevant assessment years.