9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by MCML System Pvt. Ltd., and ECI Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., engaged in business as contractors, filed its return of income for asst. year 2012- 13 on 27/9/2012 for asst. year 2012-13 declaring NIL income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25/3/2015 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.11,06,46,881/-, in view of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of a like amount by the Assessing Officer (AO) for failure on the part of assessee to deduct tax at source on payments made as warranted by the provisions of sec. 194C of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R VNL wit/tout profit element is added and actual proceeds from R VNL on each bill will be passed on to respective IV partners, to McML or ECI by the assesse. Since the JV is acting as SPy, it is only an entity which passes on the all proceeds to the McML or ECI and eventually, there is no contract involved, being a BACK TO BACK division of works.The Learned CIT (A) have not considered/ totally ignored the whole modusoperandi of the assesse explained during appellate proceedings and about non- application of provisions of sec 194C but confirmed the addition of Rs 11,06,46,881/- made by the Assessing Officer by applying the provision of sec 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. CIT (A) as well as Assessing officer just relied on the wording of "Sub con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides it is clearly evident from a reading of the impugned order that the ld CIT(A) has disposed off the assessee's appeal after adjudicating only the additional ground raised and without addressing/adjudicating the grounds at S.Nos. 1 to 4 listed out at page 2-3 of the impugned order and which we now extract hereunder:- "1. The order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is not acceptable as it is against the facts of the case and provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Id, Assessing Officer erred in facts as well as in law to conclude that provisions of Sec. 194 C as also Sec. 40(a)(ia) are applicable, without appreciating the fact that there is no contractual obligation between JV and JV partners. 3. The Id. Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
