<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (6) TMI 1846 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311651</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled that members of a Joint Venture executing highway construction work under NHAI contract are not sub-contractors requiring TDS deduction u/s 194C. The tribunal held that JV members work independently on divisible contract portions with separate profit/loss responsibilities, not as sub-contractors to each other. Each member operates as independent entity with specific technical capabilities for designated work portions. AO&#039;s presumption that JV constituted main contractor-sub-contractor relationship was rejected. CIT(A)&#039;s decision allowing assessee&#039;s claim and rejecting TDS obligation was upheld. Appeal decided against revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2024 21:01:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1846 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311651</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled that members of a Joint Venture executing highway construction work under NHAI contract are not sub-contractors requiring TDS deduction u/s 194C. The tribunal held that JV members work independently on divisible contract portions with separate profit/loss responsibilities, not as sub-contractors to each other. Each member operates as independent entity with specific technical capabilities for designated work portions. AO&#039;s presumption that JV constituted main contractor-sub-contractor relationship was rejected. CIT(A)&#039;s decision allowing assessee&#039;s claim and rejecting TDS obligation was upheld. Appeal decided against revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>