Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (12) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rges.    2. For that the learned Assessing Officer should not have refused to give credit to the Prepaid Taxes in shape of TDS of Rs.26,71,771 and the learned Commissioner is also not justified to confirm the action of the Assessing Officer." 3. The brief facts as have been brought on record in the case of the assessee M/s.Biraja Construction are that the assessee firm derives income from works contract under the name & style as M/s. Biraja Construction by executing various civil works for different Govt. Departments like EE, RWD, Jajpur; Drainage Division, Bhadrak; EE, Jajpur Irrigation Division; EE Drainage Division, Chandikhole; RW Division; Bhadrak etc. Return of income for the Asst. Year 2009-10 was filed on 29/09/2009 show .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as indicated was a credit of tax not given to it was before the learned CIT(A) who verified the Form AS-26 when the gross receipts from the Jeypore Irrigation Division fell short of the gross receipts indicating the amount cannot be taxed in its hands. 5. The learned DR has opposed the contention of the learned Counsel of the assessee on the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal insofar as the issue purportedly was not raised by the assessee as an appellant in the grounds raised before the learned CIT(A). The learned DR also proposed to indicate the reason for the same by indicating that the contracts had been received in the names of the individual partners which were pooled in the firm for execution of the contract was before the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore, held a view that the provisions of Section194C have to be invoked keeping in view the magnitude of the expenditure incurred amounting to Rs.6.58 Crores. The learned Counsel of the assessee vehemently argued that the labour contactor has made the payments for labour and wages which are to be reimbursed in accordance with the contract's terms of the tender and not because the expenses are to be disallowed requiring deduction of tax at source when the payees neither have a bank account or I.T. account. The assessee was a contractor of the Government Departments and had not entered into contract with the Sardars for supplying labourors which the learned CIT(A) misconstrued by giving a finding that payments made to 19 Sardars for suppl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee and not in the individual partners as of now insofar as it was never the case of the assessee to claim refund on filing return by the individual partners whose income would be totally disproportionate insofar as the assessee firm returning income of more than Rs.26 lakhs as income of the Firm were to pay tax on the assessee's firm income and not on the income of the individual partners the tenders having been awarded to them, if assuming but not accepting. He proposed that the deductors issued the tax deduction certificates in the name of the assessee ought to have been considered by the Assessing Officer and not only for considering the gross receipts on the basis of TDS when he ought to have reduced the income against which no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ficer in the hands of the assessee when the assessee returned an income of Rs.26,03,870. Out of the labour payments of Rs.6.58 Crores when the main business of the assessee as a labour contactor was to verify the payments to 19 Sardars was payments for labourors procured by them which individual labourors were paid amount less than Rs.50,000 cannot be held as a sub sub-contractor. In other words, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the facts and circumstances led to payment in cash to those Sardars more than Rs.50,000 when the individual payments to reach a bench mark of Rs.50,000 in the order was neither for the same person therefore clearly indicated that the provisions of Section 194C could not have been invoked waiting to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates