2017 (10) TMI 530 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Payments to JV Partners Not Subject to TDS

A.C.I.T., Circle 24 (1), New Delhi Versus Geoconsult-Rites NRT 1JV

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the deletion of the addition by the ld. CIT(A). The ITAT found that the payments made by the assessee ... Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - obliged to deduct tax at source on the payments made to sub-contractors as per provisions of section 194C - CIT-A treating the impugned payments as reimbursement - nature of payment - Held that:- No justification to dislodge the findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that both the parties to whom the impugned payment was made by assessee-AOP were the Joint Venture Members of the assessee-AOP. It is notable that as per clause 9.1 of the Joint Venture Agreement entered between the assessee-AOP and the Northern Railway, both GC and RITES have incurred the costs on manpower in the project of Northern Railway, which was reimbursable to them as per above contract entered with the main contractee to execute the project. The ld. CIT(A) has properly examined the details of employees assigned and cost incurred by both the Joint-Venture Members, i.e., GC and RITES and has clearly found that the amount actually incurred by them towards the manpower cost, was reimbursed to them by the assessee-AOP. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that it was not any payment made under any sub-contract, as imagined by the AO without any evidence on record. There is no good reason or evidence on record to hold that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee- AOP in the present fact situation would partake the character of income or profit, liable to tax deduction at source by the payer - Decided against revenue Issues:- Addition of Rs. 2,65,14,237 for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act- Justification of the deletion of the addition by the ld. CIT(A)Analysis:1. The appeal pertained to the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,65,14,237 for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. The AO disallowed the expenses as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on payments made to two parties for the supply of manpower, considering it as a sub-contract arrangement. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering detailed submissions, additional evidences, and relevant legal provisions. The ld. CIT(A) found the AO's arguments based on presumptions and conjectures, admitting additional evidence to support the appellant's case.2. The key contention was whether the payments made by the assessee to its JV partners were reimbursements or payments under a sub-contract, thereby attracting TDS provisions. The ld. CIT(A) analyzed the nature of the transactions, highlighting that the appellant was an AOP, not a firm, and the JV partners were required to assign personnel for project execution. The expenses reimbursed by the appellant were found to have no profit element, as per the contractual agreements and evidence provided. Citing legal precedents and the nature of the expenses, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the payments were not subject to TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.3. The Revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the payments as reimbursements, emphasizing the profit element in sub-contracts. However, the authorized representative of the assessee supported the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the nature of the payments and the absence of sub-contract agreements. The ITAT upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the payments were reimbursements to JV members for project costs, not subject to TDS. The ITAT concurred with the analysis that the expenses did not constitute income or profit, as per legal precedents cited.4. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the addition by the ld. CIT(A). The ITAT found no basis to interfere with the ld. CIT(A)'s well-reasoned decision, considering the contractual arrangements, absence of profit element, and legal precedents cited in support of the assessee's position. The appeal was deemed to lack merit, and the decision was pronounced in favor of the assessee on 05.10.2017.