9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 956 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - payments made towards subcontract without deducting tds - assessee JV had assigned the work allotted to its member companies - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2017 (8) TMI 1595 - ITAT PUNE in absence of any contract or sub-contract work by joint venture to its member companies, provisions of section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS - The two corporate entities forming joint venture were already being assessed since A.Y. 2000-01 onwards on their respective shares and TDS apportionment certificates were also issued by the AO every year for these eight years including the current assessment year to enable them to claim the same - there was no Profit and Loss Account in the assessee s case and there was no claim of any expenditure - there was no question of any disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made by the AO cannot be sustained - the finding of the CIT(A) cannot be interfered who has rightly held that there is no question of disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Section 194C for deduction of TDS on payments made towards subcontract. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 40(a)(ia): The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was correct in deleting the addition of ?28,61,50,769/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) due to the assessee's failure to deduct TDS under Section 194C. The Assessing Officer (AO) had noticed that the assessee, a Joint Venture, had received contract receipts amounting to ?28,61,50,769/-, which were distributed among its member companies without deducting TDS. The AO considered this as a violation of Section 194C and disallowed the amount under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15. The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal. 2. Applicability of Section 194C for Deduction of TDS: The AO argued that the agreement between the entities was essentially a contract, necessitating TDS deduction under Section 194C. The assessee contended that the payments were not sub-contract charges but were distributed as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) among the members of the Joint Venture, thus not requiring TDS deduction. The Tribunal examined the facts and noted that the issue was identical to the assessee's own case for previous years (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13). In these cases, the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payments to the members of the Joint Venture were not sub-contracts and therefore did not attract TDS under Section 194C. The Tribunal referenced the case of Shraddha & Mahalaxmi Joint Venture and Swapnali RDS Joint Venture, where similar rulings were made. The Tribunal observed that the Joint Venture was formed solely for obtaining and distributing contract receipts among its members, and there was no principal-agent relationship that would necessitate TDS deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no distinguishing features or contrary decisions presented by the Revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, reaffirming that the payments made by the Joint Venture to its members did not constitute sub-contracts and were not subject to TDS under Section 194C. Consequently, the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) was correctly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its previous rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier years, further solidifying the legal position on this matter.
|
