9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (9) TMI 1045 - AAR - Income TaxWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the joint venture constitutes an AOP within the meaning s. 2(31)(v) so as to become liable to tax under the IT Act 1961 or each party of the joint venture is liable to tax on its own profits ? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances the rationale behind the provisions of s. 44AB would be applicable in the case of the applicant and a sum equal to ten per cent of the contract amount as and when paid shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession ?
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the joint venture constitutes an Association of Persons (AOP) liable to tax under the IT Act, 1961. 2. Tax assessment of profit earned by the applicant. 3. Depreciation allowance on assets deployed for the contract. 4. Deduction or capitalization of repairs and maintenance expenses. 5. Deduction of standing charges for assets taken on hire/lease. 6. Deduction for writing off obsolete assets. 7. Credit for tax deducted at source. 8. Applicability of Section 44AB rationale. 9. Determination of taxable profit based on fixed percentage of gross receipts. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Joint Venture as an AOP The applicant, Van Oord ACZ, BV (VOACZ), formed a joint venture with Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (HCC) for the Breakwater Construction of Ennore Port. The joint venture agreement specified that each party would bear its own losses and retain its profits, without sharing. The Authority ruled that the applicant cannot be treated as a partnership, which requires an agreement, nor as an AOP. An AOP necessitates a common purpose or action to produce income jointly. Here, each party executed its part of the work independently, without a common business objective. Thus, the applicant and HCC are not an AOP for income-tax purposes and will be taxed separately. Issue 2: Tax Assessment of Profit Given the ruling on Issue 1, the question of whether the profit earned by the applicant will be assessed under Section 28 or excluded under Section 86 read with Section 167B became academic and was not answered. Issue 3: Depreciation Allowance The Authority referred to the case of N.V. Jan De Nul, where it was established that assets deployed for the first time in India and on which no depreciation has been "actually allowed" under the IT Act, 1961, are prima facie entitled to depreciation allowance. However, it was deemed unnecessary to answer this question separately. Issue 4: Deduction or Capitalization of Repairs and Maintenance Expenses Similarly, this issue was not answered separately, as it was substantially covered in the referenced case. Issue 5: Deduction of Standing Charges The question of whether standing charges for assets taken on hire/lease would be allowed as a deduction was also not answered separately, following the precedent set in N.V. Jan De Nul. Issue 6: Deduction for Writing Off Obsolete Assets This issue was not addressed independently, as it was covered under the broader principles discussed. Issue 7: Credit for Tax Deducted at Source The question of credit for tax deducted at source was not answered separately, as it was subsumed under the broader ruling. Issue 8: Applicability of Section 44AB Rationale The Authority ruled affirmatively, stating that the applicant should be taxed in accordance with the principle embedded in Section 44BBB. Ten percent of the amount receivable under the contract, whether in India or elsewhere, should be deemed as profits and gains of business under Section 28, without any deductions or allowances. Issue 9: Determination of Taxable Profit Given the affirmative ruling on Issue 8, this question was not answered separately. Conclusion: - The applicant is to be assessed on its own profits separately and not as an AOP. - The principle of Section 44BBB applies, deeming ten percent of the contract amount as taxable profit. - Other specific questions (3 to 7 and 9) were not answered independently due to the comprehensive ruling on the key issues.
|
