9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though its site supervisor or employees. These labours were not regular labour. Also temporary labours were deployed at multiple remote sites, therefore, the assessee or his supervisors have withdrawn money from bank accounts for payment to the labour. Therefore, there is no liability for TDS u/s 40(a)(ia). There is no any agreement with any agency or subcontractor for cartage or supply of goods. Also there is no single payment to individual party more than ₹ 50,000/- during the year under consideration. Therefore, the provision of section 194C is not applicable. The original vouchers have been produced by the assessee for verification. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 571/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Shri Kul Bharat, Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 40A(3) of the Act at ₹ 13,10,807/- and also there was no deduction of tax on the payment of ₹ 6,46,62,207/- and accordingly he made disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act and there was no deduction of tax on the payment of ₹ 6,46,62,207/- and accordingly he made disallowance u/s 40a(ia) at ₹ 6,59,73,014/- and u/s 40A(3) at ₹ 13,10,807/-. The addition was also made at ₹ 7,80,087/- for debiting penalty expenses in the profit and loss account. The income assessed at ₹ 9,07,69,370/-. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and partly succeeded and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition u/s 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vouchers have been produced by the assessee which were verified. Regarding disallowance u/s 40a(ia) 8.4 The remand report of the A.O. in regard to the addition made in the assessment order on account of violation of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act in respect of Earth Digging Charges of ₹ 4,18,25,817/-, ₹ 40,55,890/- for stone cutting charges and ₹ 1,87,80,500/- for cartage/carriage heads, has submitted that this expenditure was incurred by the appellant by hiring individual labour at its remote sites or villages and daily payments though its site supervisor or employees. These labours were not regular labour. Also temporary labours were deployed at multiple remote sites, therefore, the assessee or his supervis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
