9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 248 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - payments made to the manufacturers without TDS deduction - Disallowance invoking section 40(a)(ia) - whether the payees are not sub-contractors ? - leviability of interest u/s.234A/234B/234D - Held that - Consedring the assessee s submission that the assessee is not a contractor as prescribed u/s.194C(2) of the Act and the previous year involved is 2004-05 relevant to assessment year 2005-06 and the provisions of the section 40(a)(ia) of the act brought into statute book on 10.09.2004. Being so, it cannot be applied to the entire assessment year. Further, it was submitted that each payment is less than Rs. 20,000/- and aggregate payment is less than ₹ 50,000/- to each party in the assessment year under consideration. Being so, Sec.194C(2) of the Act cannot be applied. As these facts were not examined by the Ld.CIT(A), though raised before him and prayed the issue may be remitted to the file of AO for considering all the facts.
Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and leviability of interest u/s.234A/234B/234D. 2. Interpretation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) in relation to payments made to manufacturers. 3. Applicability of section 194C and determination of sub-contractor status. 4. Assessment of job work expenses and TDS deductions. 5. Disallowance of expenses and applicability of section 40(a)(ia) in the case. 6. Application of case laws in support of arguments. 7. Remittance of the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and interest levied under sections 234A/234B/234D The main grievance of the assessee was the disallowance of a specific amount under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the imposition of interest under sections 234A/234B/234D. The dispute revolved around the non-deduction of tax on payments made, leading to the disallowance of expenses and interest charges by the Assessing Officer. Issue 2: Interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) in relation to payments to manufacturers The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) stating that payments to manufacturers should have been made after tax deduction. The contention was that such payments would not be allowable expenditures due to non-compliance with tax deduction requirements. Issue 3: Applicability of section 194C and determination of sub-contractor status The dispute involved whether the payees were considered sub-contractors under section 194C(2) and if the disqualification under section 40(a)(ia) applied. The argument was based on the responsibility for the manufacturing process and the nature of the relationship between the parties. Issue 4: Assessment of job work expenses and TDS deductions The assessment highlighted the job work expenses and TDS deductions related to production activities. The contention was on the nature of payments made through sub-contractors and the applicability of tax deduction provisions. Issue 5: Disallowance of expenses and section 40(a)(ia) applicability The Commissioner observed that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was applicable due to non-deduction of TDS on certain payments. The decision was based on the nature of payments, the involvement of sub-contractors, and the lack of compliance with tax deduction requirements. Issue 6: Application of case laws in support of arguments The assessee relied on specific case laws to support their arguments regarding the nature of payments, sub-contractor status, and applicability of tax deduction provisions. The case laws cited aimed to provide legal precedence for the contentions raised during the proceedings. Issue 7: Remittance of the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, taking into account all arguments and facts presented during the appeal. Both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the issues in dispute.
|
