9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions in the case of Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd.[2010 (3) TMI 1211 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue - I.T. A. Nos.226 to 232/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2018 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R) For The Respondent : Shri K.G. Adarsha, C.A. ORDER Per Bench : These are a bunch of seven appeals by the Revenue, directed against the order Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 13, Bangalore dated 10.11.2016 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15. Since common issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off together by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the activity of identifying suitable lands and forming a residential layout for allotment of residential sites to its members. In this case a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttracted in the case on hand. 3.1 Revenue, being aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A)-13, Bangalore dated 10/11/2016 for asst. years 2008-09 to 2014-15, has filed these appeals before the Tribunal raising the following common grounds for the aforesaid Assessment Years. 1. The order of CIT(A) is opposed to the facts and nature of the case on hand. 2. The Id. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s. 194C from the payments made to developer. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A). 4. The Id. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that as per the assessee's agreement with the developer the works to be carried out like for procuring of land, developing, conversion, plan for approval, drainage, laying roads etc. clearly attracted provisions of Section 194C. 5. The Id. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the agreement entered into by the assessee with the developer are in the nature of composite contracts for works for which provisions of Section 194C is clearly applicable. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue. 3.4 Per contra, the ld AR of the assessee supported the impugned orders of the ld CIT(A), and submitted that there is no error therein as the issue in dispute is covered by the orders of the co-ordinate benches of this tribunal which were relied on by the assessee i.e (i) Kautilya House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. (Supra); (ii) Karnataka Legislature Secretariat Employees Housing Co-op Society Ltd., in ITA Nos.1324 to 1337/Bang/2015 and (iii) REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., in ITA Nos.1372 to 1377/Bang/2017. It was prayed that in the light of the above judicial precedents and facts of the case, the impugned order of the ld CIT(A) be upheld. 3.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. On an appraisal of the material before us, we find that there is nothing therein that shows that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on payments made to the developers in the years under appeal. 3.5.2 Now coming to the merits of the issue in dispute, it is seen that the assessee society has entered into agreement/MOU with developer/contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser, if any advance sale consideration is paid, the assessee has no business to deduct the tax at source as it is for the seller of the sites to pay the capital gains depending upon the tax payable by him. 3.5.5 In the aforesaid case decided by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court (Supra), the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal had rendered the following finding:- . the agreement between Sh. Lakshman, and Karnataka State .Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society begins to operate only after the layout is formed and so can never be construed as an agreement in the nature of works contract. A contractor is one who I undertakes to do a particular work-for a price. No such contract is envisaged in this agreement. This agreement envisages purchase of specified intermediate sites at a price after Sri Lakshman completes the job of formation of a layout either infti1 or in part. We accordingly hold that the assessee was not required to deduct tax in this regard. 3.5.6 We find that Revenue s contention, that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
