9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d which constitute its main income and the main function of the assessee was to arrange contracts from different agencies for its member truck operators which were factually and collectively performed by such members - The assessee union did not give any sub-contract to its members as alleged by the Assessing Officer - Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the member truck operators can be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial question of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.6,30,32,453/- on a/c of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that payments by the Truck Operators Union to the truck operator members were covered within the meaning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition after disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that it failed to deduct tax at source as required under Section 194C(2) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the said addition holding that there was no violation as held by the Assessing Officer. The finding recorded in this respect is as under:- 3.5 Considering the facts of the case as explained in details b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cks the contracts were performed and as such, the same was disbursed to none else but them. The assessee union did not give any sub-contract to its members as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the member truck operators can be said to be the sub-contractors of the assessee within the meaning of section 194-C(2) and as such the assessee was not liable to dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the revenue also points out that same view has been taken by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in its order dated 20.10.2009 in I.T.A. No.30 of 2005 CIT v. M/sAmbuja Darla Kashlog Mangu Transport Co. Op. Society ors. against which SLP was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 17.1.2011 being SLP(Civil) /2011 CC 259/2011 CIT Shimla v. M/s Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
