9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment, the AO has observed that the assessee debited job charges to the tune of Rs.1,63,47,570/- in the PandL a/c. and perusal of the details of job charges submitted revealed that the same was paid to 22 parties. The AO also observed that the assessee deducted TDS on job charges of Rs.1,49,69,028/- only @2.24% which is Rs.3,35,905/- and deposited the same to the govt. a/c. The assessee was asked to explain vide a show cause letter dated 11.11.2008 as to why the balance job charge expenses of Rs.13,78,542/- was not subjected to TDS and why the said amount should not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS, as per law. After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO disallowed the same by observin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.1,63,47,570/- the payment of Rs.1,37,59,392/- was paid to four parties exceeding Rs.1O,00,000/- and hence as per the provisions of section 194C(2) the tax @ 1.12% on this payment comes to Rs.1,54,380/-. The balance amount of Rs.25,88,178/- was paid to 18 different parties and u/s. 194C(2) the tax (c) 1.02% on this amount comes to Rs.26,399/-. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act the appellant was required to deduct total tax u/s 194C(2) at Rs.1,80,779/- (Rs.1,54,380 + Rs.26,399) on total payment of Rs.1,63,47,570/- on account of labour charges. In fact, the appellant has deducted and paid much more amount than required as per the provisions u/s.194C(2) of 'the Act i.e. the appellant has deducted and paid T.D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - at 2.24% i.e. Rs.3,35,905/- and deposited the same to the government a/c. However, the Ld. CIT(A), without contradicting this finding, has given relief, simply by accepting the submissions of the assessee that the assessee deducted and paid more amount to the tax authorities, than as required under the law. Therefore, he requested to reverse the order of the Ld. CIT(A)1 and restore that of the AO. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Assessee, has reiterated the submissions made before the revenue authorities and further contended that since the assessee has already recovered more amount than required under section 194C, therefore, he requested to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). On query from the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
