9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal record a finding that it was the first year of the business of the appellant, disallowance by the Tribunal under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure of the appellant to comply with Section 194C is sustainable in law? (b) Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the there was no material to show it was the first year of business or that the monetary limit in the preceding year had not been breached does not advert to the detailed reasons recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue, is perverse and liable to be set-aside? (c) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, having confirmed the direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to compute income of the appellant @ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee is the proprietor of the business. The receipts shown are the part of the turnover of the main contractor and the turnover of the business of the assessee is not exceeding the monetary limit prescribed by Section-44 AB of the Act. The Tribunal has wrongly restored the disallowance made by the assessee. It is also submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the audit report, it was new business of the assessee, as such, the liability of the assessee to assessee to deduct TDS under Section-194C did not arise. The Tribunal has overlooked the fact that there was no liability to deduct the TDS which was the cost of the material and labour supplied by the main contractor as it was a cost incurred by the main co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies for laying & compacting GSB & WMM mixture. V) Arrangement of generator for power. VI) Arrangement of water for construction of road. VII) Arrangement for security. From the above, it appears that the assessee was not responsible to purchase the raw materials like sand, gitti etc. and it was purchased by the main contractor. Therefore, prima-facie the assessee was not responsible to deduct the TDS. Regarding the net profit rate, it appears that the assessee has shown net profit rate @ 3.18%. But the books of account were rejected so the A.O. has estimated the profit @ 8% and made addition. The Tribunal upholds the 8% net profit on the total receipt of the appellant. But the raw material belongs to the main contractor and not to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
