9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the Act), challenges the order dated 13th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that no contract has existed between assessee AOP and its m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the CIT(A) in the case of SMC Ambika (JV) which was an identical facts. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) held that the members of AOP who received the amount from the AOP were not its subcontractor. Consequently, no occasion to deduct tax under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act, would arise. In the meantime, Tribunal reversed the decision of CIT(A) in the matter of SMC Ambika (supra) and held in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its order dated 11th June, 2014 has, inter alia, observed as under:- "The Tribunal found that the assesssee is an Association of Persons (AOP). The association comprises of M/s. SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and M/s. Ambika Enterprises which is a proprietary firm. The association was for the purposes of bidding for contract of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al insisted on any written contract evidencing such relationship. The Tribunal noted the admitted facts and found that there is no sub-contract or relationship of a sub-contractor emerging from this undisputed factual position. It is in these circumstances, that it held that section 194C(2) of the Income Tax Act has no application to the facts of the assessee's case." 7. The aforesaid facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
