9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Identical grounds of the Revenue in these three appeals are as under- "1. The learned CIT(A) order has erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 66,56,910/-, ₹ 3,30,72,610/- and ₹ 2,04,22,560/- respectively for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 against the Assessing officer's view that 2% of payments to individual members assessed in the hands of AOP may be treated as its estimated income U/s. 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts that the Joint Venture has received commission on sub-contract even though the joint Venture has not executed the contract work on its own." 3. The learned CIT-DR sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to the assessee joint venture and accordingly, this is not a case of tax evasion on the part of the assessee. He submitted that no rebate, to the extent of the income assessed in the hands of the assessee, was allowed in the hands of the members of the joint venture. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Glaxo Smithkline (P) Ltd, in Civil Appeal No.,18121/2007 dated 26.10.2010 in support of his arguments. He referred to paras 14 to 16 of the appellate order of the CIT(A) in support of the case of the assessee, and relied on the order of the CIT(A). 5. The learned CIT-DR, in her rejoinder submitted that the relevant agreement could not be proved by the assessee and the estimation made by the assessing office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the goods/services or facilities for which the payment was made. No such case was made out by the Revenue in this case of the assessee. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that it could not be a case of tax evasion as the rate of taxation of the members of the Joint Venture was higher than the rate of taxation applicable to the assessee, as the members of the Joint Venture are foreign concerns. There is no material brought on record to doubt the genuineness of the relevant agreement, copy of which is filed in the compilation filed before us. We find that the CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee has maintained regular books of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
