Joint venture payments to constituents attract TDS under section 194C, and delayed remittance triggered disallowance for the year in question.

Payments by a joint venture to its constituents were treated as sub-contract payments attracting tax deduction at source under section 194C because the contract was awarded to the joint venture, the constituents had no separate contract with the contractee, and the assessee itself booked them as sub-contract expenditure. Delayed remittance of the deducted tax continued to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for the year in question, as the Finance Act 2010 amendment extending the deposit time was held not retrospective. The unexplained difference between Form 26AS receipts and the profit and loss account was also sustained because the assessee failed to reconcile the variance or produce supporting confirmation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether payments made by the assessee-joint venture to its constituents were liable to tax deduction at source as sub-contract payments under section 194C. (ii) Whether the expenditure was disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) for non-remittance of deducted tax within the prescribed time and whether the amendment by Finance Act, 2010 applied retrospectively to the assessment year in question. (iii) Whether the addition made on account of alleged price variation between the receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the profit and loss account was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether payments made by the assessee-joint venture to its constituents were liable to tax deduction at source as sub-contract payments under section 194C.

Analysis: The contract was awarded to the joint venture, which credited the gross receipts in its books and debited payments to the constituents as sub-contract expenditure. The constituents had no separate contract with the contractee, and the assessee itself treated them as sub-contractors and deducted tax at source on the payments.

Conclusion: The payments were liable to deduction of tax at source under section 194C and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the expenditure was disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) for non-remittance of deducted tax within the prescribed time and whether the amendment by Finance Act, 2010 applied retrospectively to the assessment year in question.

Analysis: The tax deducted on the sub-contract payments was not deposited within the time prescribed for the relevant year. The Tribunal followed the Special Bench view that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 extending the time for deposit was not retrospective for the assessment year involved. The contention based on payment before the due date of return and the distinction between paid and payable was not accepted for the year in dispute.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition made on account of alleged price variation between the receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the profit and loss account was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee failed to reconcile the difference between the receipts reflected in Form 26AS and those recorded in the books, and no supporting confirmation for the claimed price variation was produced.

Conclusion: The addition was sustained and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeal failed, while the Revenue succeeded on the main disallowance issue, with one issue remitted for reconsideration and the remaining additions sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a joint venture itself accounts for contract receipts and treats payments to its constituents as sub-contract expenditure, such payments attract section 194C; and for the assessment year in question, delayed remittance of deducted tax continued to invite disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) notwithstanding the later amendment.

---