TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to full deduction of labour and service component from the works contract turnover under Rule 9(1)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, or whether the authorities were justified in applying Rule 9(3) and allowing only 30% deduction. (ii) Whether the addition made towards purchases of sand, ballast stone, morang and similar items could be sustained in the absence of material on record.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to full deduction of labour and service component from the works contract turnover under Rule 9(1)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, or whether the authorities were justified in applying Rule 9(3) and allowing only 30% deduction.
Analysis: The contract was treated as a single composite works contract. The assessee's books and running bills showed segregation of earthwork, labour charge and the construction component, but there was no material to show that the contract itself admitted a separate and exclusive labour-work segment so as to exclude the entire claimed labour amount from the works contract. In the absence of proof that the accounts were unacceptable or that the labour figures could not be acted upon, the authorities were required to examine whether Rule 9(1)(d) or Rule 9(3) applied. On the materials available, the rejection of the assessee's claim for full exclusion of the entire quantified labour amount was not justified.
Conclusion: The finding that only 30% deduction was admissible from the balance works contract under Rule 9(3) was upheld, but the assessee succeeded to the extent that arbitrary denial of the admissible deduction without proper examination was disapproved.
Issue (ii): Whether the addition made towards purchases of sand, ballast stone, morang and similar items could be sustained in the absence of material on record.
Analysis: No material was shown to justify enhancing the turnover by making fresh additions under different heads after the earlier remand. The addition was treated as unsupported by the record and incapable of being sustained merely to offset the earlier finding regarding stone purchases.
Conclusion: The addition to turnover on account of these purchases was unsustainable and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The revision resulted in only partial success for the assessee: the labour-deduction issue was substantially rejected, but the additions made without supporting material were interfered with, leaving the matter disposed of with modification.
Ratio Decidendi: In a composite works contract, deduction for labour and service components must be determined on the basis of the contract terms and the material on record, and additions to turnover cannot be sustained without evidentiary support.
TaxTMI 
