9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F whose total sales and gross receipts exceed the monitory limit u/s. 44AB would be liable for deduction of tax u/s. 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in reducing addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of part expenses of Hire Charges payment, Packing Charges, Conveyance, Staff Welfare, sundry Expenses and Tea & Other Expenses. 3) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any new ground, if necessary. Effectively only grounds No. 1 & 2 were taken up the DR. Ground No. 1 relates to acceptance by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Parties are not big enough and who are at all engaged in taking any job work / sub contract, but these parties are solely engaged in Hiring of Vehicles, and as mentioned earlier assessee a sole proprietor and small time contractor takes Vehicles on hire from different parties, engages his own labour and executes the Job / contract. There is no sub contract in such a case as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Vishakapatnam in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 124 TTJ (Vishaka) 970 (2009) wherein it is held that though the passing of liability is not the only criteria to decide about the existence of sub-contract, yet contention of the assessee is that there is no liability of the individual vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, (TDS) Chandigarh v. United Rice Land Ltd. IT Appeal No. 633 of 2007, 174 Taxman 286 (P&H). Deduction of T.D.S. by an individual covered u/s 44AB on contracts is effective from 01.07.2007. Which would be effective from 1.6.2007 i.e. A.Y. 2008-09 and not A.Y. 2007-08 and since the case of the appellant pertains to A.Y. 2007-08 the amended provisions will not apply to the case of the appellant and therefore, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS on payment made by him since the amendment applies for A.Y. 2008-09 and not for A.Y. 2007-08. Also, the fact that as stated by the appellant there is no sub contract between the appellant and the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
