2012 (10) TMI 1046 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Estimation of income from contract receipts at 12.5% - Contracts include sub-contracts - income from sub-contracts to be estimated at 8% - interest receipt on bank deposit - Sale of leftover materials - whether sale of scrap or not - Held that - There was no evidence regarding taking up of subcontract from any other concern - AO is justified in determining the net profit at 12.5% Interest earned on margin money was inextricably connected with the contract of guarantee itself. The entire receipts have to be considered as income as this expenditure has already gone into the Profit and Loss A/c Now the assessee counsel is trying to find a hole in the findings of the Tribunal which is not possible in proceedings u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly the plea of the assessee is dismissed. - the contention of the assessee dismissed - Decided against the assessee

Issues:
1. Estimation of income from contract receipts at different rates for own contracts and subcontracts.
2. Treatment of interest receipt on bank deposit as income from other sources.
3. Taxation of sale proceeds of materials used in construction.
4. Rectification of findings regarding estimation of income at 12.5% on gross receipts.
5. Taxation of sale proceeds of materials other than scrap.
6. Treatment of interest income.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the estimation of income from contract receipts at different rates for own contracts and subcontracts. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply 12.5% on own contracts and 8% on subcontract receipts. However, a discrepancy arose in the application of rates by the Assessing Officer, leading to a plea for clarification. The Tribunal upheld the original decision, emphasizing that the net profit rate of 12.5% applies to the entire contract receipts, dismissing the assessee's argument for differential rates.

2. The second issue concerns the treatment of interest receipt on bank deposit as income from other sources. The assessee argued that interest earned on margin money should not be separately assessed under section 56 of the Act, citing relevant case law. However, the Tribunal declined to entertain the plea, citing debatability and lack of clarity in the legal position.

3. The third issue involves the taxation of sale proceeds of materials used in construction. The Tribunal confirmed the taxation of the entire sale value of scrap, rejecting the argument that such sales should not be considered as direct income but as a reduction in expenditure. The Tribunal maintained that the entire value of scrap sold should be taxed.

4. The fourth issue relates to the rectification of findings regarding the estimation of income at 12.5% on gross receipts. The assessee sought rectification based on different contentions for different assessment years. However, the Tribunal upheld its original decision, stating that no rectification was warranted as per the circumstances presented.

5. The fifth issue pertains to the taxation of sale proceeds of materials other than scrap. The assessee argued that the sale of materials like readymix, bitumen, diesel, steel, and cement should be treated separately from contract receipts. The Tribunal held that these components cannot be excluded from income computation and should be assessed separately.

6. The final issue concerns the treatment of interest income, which was dismissed by the Tribunal based on similar reasons presented in a previous application. The Tribunal found the facts and circumstances to be analogous, leading to the dismissal of the contention.

In conclusion, both Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed by the Tribunal, maintaining the original orders and decisions on the various issues raised by the assessee.

← Previous Next →