9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer felt that the payment made by the joint venture / assessee to the extent of ₹ 1,22,85,402/- was excessive and, therefore, the said amount was disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40 A(2) (b) of the said Act. – held that - The Tribunal held as a fact that the arrangement between the parties was clear that after receipt of the contract from the National Highways Authority of India, the work was to be executed by the joint venture members directly and no effort was to be made by the assessee/ joint venture itself in the execution of the contract. It was, therefore, found by the Tribunal that the assessee was created as a joint venture for obtaining works from the National Highways Authority of India without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nture was established for the purposes of obtaining works from the National Highways Authority of India. However, it was the arrangement between the joint venture partners that the works that are assigned by the National Highways Authority of India to the joint venture would be carried out on a back-to-back basis by the partners themselves and that the works would be equally distributed between the partners. 2. During the year in question, the assessee received the contracts from the National Highways Authority of India amounting to Rs.1,24,75,88,242/-. The assessee had, as per the joint venture agreement, sub-contracted the works to the joint venture partners, namely, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd and Gammon India Ltd for exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btaining works from the National Highways Authority of India without there being any requirement or necessity of the joint venture to carry out any activity itself. In fact, all the activities were to be carried out by the aforesaid two members of the joint venture and for which they were to be remunerated. In this context, the Tribunal returned a clear finding that the remuneration of the members of the joint venture was not excessive having regard to the fair market value of the services rendered by them. 4. In any event, no interference with the impugned order is called for inasmuch as the same does not raise any question of law and the findings are those of fact alone. A decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
