9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. It is not the case that the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury has executed the contract taken in the name of the assessee. The assessee has received interest from banks in respect of various deposits in his name and he is not under contractual obligation to transfer such income to the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury. It is also found that TDS has been made in respect of interest paid in the name of the assessee as per 26AS statement. The agreement between the firm and the partner Arun Kumar Choudhury (HuF) cannot be binding on the assessee. The record shows that the assessee has received interest and executed contracts in his name and TDS made on the interest is credited in the name of the assessee. In view of the same, there is no reason tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d precedence. The learned CIT has erred in confirming the improper addition made by the Learned ITO of ₹ 12,93,062 as interest income although the same was included in the income of the Firm source of the funds being taken from the Firm. This clearly led to double taxation and hence bad in law. b. The assessee procured the contract business as technical entrepreneur license holder and clubbed it with the firm turnover as a matter of practice and precedence. The learned CIT has erred in confirming the improper addition made by the Learned ITO of ₹ 38,365/- as 8% income on contract turnover executed and included in the turnover of the Firm. This clearly led to double taxation and hence bad in law. 3. I have heard the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer and the contract receipts considered in the hands of the appellant are already offered to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury and, therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounts double addition. It was further stated that as per the agreement between the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury and the assessee as a partner, the assessee was prohibited to carry on competing business separately and if he gets any independent business, the same shall be transferred to the firm. It was submitted that the contract receipts considered in the hands of the assessee had been transferred to the firm and the interest receipt was in respect of security deposits and performance guarantee given out of the funds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of assessment proceedings as well as during the course of appeal hearing submitted that that the assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury is false and misleading as has been found by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. The assessee is not under contractual obligation to transfer any business to the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury. Hence, the contract receipts in the name of the assessee have to be considered in the hands of the assessee. It is not the case that the firm M/s. Jagannath Choudhury has executed the contract taken in the name of the assessee. The assessee has received interest from banks in respect of various deposits in his name and he is not under contractual obligation to transfer such inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
