2014 (12) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubstantial questions of law :      "{A} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the disallowance of Rs. 77,67,754/- claimed as "work penalty expenses" which actually was interest expenses liable to provisions of TDS and hence, non compliance thereof was liable to disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act ?" {B} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts to ignore the cross account filed by Unitech showing the amount in question as interest?"     {C} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts to ignore the fact that the subsequent certificate filed by assessee from Unitech Ltd was not supporte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he copy of accounts produced during the original assessment proceedings, the amount in question was shown by M/s. Unitech as interest expenses. Subsequently, a contention was raised that the sum represented the amount recovered due to settlement of claim, etc., which was not supported by any evidence. It was submitted that in the original appeal, the assessee had admitted that the amount in question was interest recovered by M/s. Unitech from the amounts payable to it. Moreover, from the record, it is evident that the amount deducted by M/s. Unitech from the bills payable to the assessee was deemed to have been paid by the assessee to M/s. Unitech, and therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS under section 194C of the Act and accord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e agreement, the entire work had to be completed by the assessee as per the terms of the contract entered into between M/s. Unitech and the main contractee and the assessee was required to indemnify M/s. Unitech Limited for any delay effect or other liability arising from non-performance or non-observance of the stipulation of the main contract. From the record of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) found as a matter of fact that the amount in question was paid because of the extra costs that M/s. Unitech Limited had to incur on account of appellant having not completed the work taken on subcontract from M/s. Unitech Limited. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer instead of examining the contents of the documents f....