AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant in the return of income furnished by the appellant for the instant assessment year. 2. That the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that mere fact that allotment of contract does not bring about any liability to taxability the income from contract in the hands of entity executing the contract and on the contrary once a contract has been executed by partnership firm under the deed of partnership then such income has to be assessed in the hands of firm. 3. That the finding that "it is a case of sub-contract and whenever there is a sub-contract, the contractor giving the contracts has to once again deduct tax which has not been done by the partner of the firm Sh. Dayanand, when the contract in q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant was asked to reconcile these differences, in the return the appellant has shown at total income of Rs. 7,90,480/- with the TDS of Rs. 13,01,041/-, and no refund was claimed in the return. However in the computation of income subsequently filed by the appellant the appellant has claimed a refund of Rs. 10,42,130/- on account of TDS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant stated that the difference between Form No. 26AS and the business receipts (contractor payments) of Rs. 7,99,45,009/- was on account of the fact that one of the partners in the firm (Dayanand) had taken the contracts in his name and transferred the same to the firm. The contracts were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he return of income furnished by the appellant for the instant assessment year. At the outset contract has been assigned to the assessee firm by the partner, which fact is also accepted by the leaned CIT (A) in his order at page 8, wherein he held as under: "ii) Whenever a contract is given to another party, by the party which has obtained the contract (sub-contract), provisions of TDS kick in once again. That is to say that whenever there is a sub-contract, the contractor giving the contracts has to once again deduct tax. Apparently this has not been done by the partner of the firm Sh. Dayanand, when the contract in question have been transferred to the firm." 7. After acceptance of the fact that Sh. Dayanand has transferred the contrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and its constituents are sub-contractors. Accordingly, we et aside the orders of the revenue authorities and delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,11,09,23,018/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. It was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that once the contract is obtained in the name of individual but executed by partnership firm under the deed of partnership then such income has to be assessed in the hands of the firm. In the case of ITO vs. Manikarnika Devi Singh reported in 98 Taxman 32 (Jab)(Mag),(page 115 of paper book) it has been held as under: "Once the revenue had itself accepted that the contract work was executed by the firm and the income was earned by the fir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....66M the learned Assessing Officer allowed and issued the refund in the status of the firm for the TDS/TCS deducted in the name of one of partner namely Sh. Ranbir Singh. A copy of the order of assessment dated 10.12.2010 in the case of M/s Ranbir Singh having PAN No. AAJFR9966M is placed at pages 45-47 of paper book alongwith copy of order of granting interest on said refund at pages 44 of paper book. The aforesaid position is accepted in preceding assessment years in assessee's own case. The Assessing Officer at last page of the order of assessment has held as under: "i) As per back ground of the case, the assessee is being assessed to tax for the last 15 years in his individual status and since 2002 onwards in the status of firm also." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.Y. 2003-04), 60/PN/2009 (A.Y. 2005-06), 177 and 178/PN/2008 (A.Y. 2002-03 and 2004-05 ITO vs. Rajdeep & PMCC Infrastructure, xiii) ITA No. 65/PN/2011 (AY 2007-08) M/s Gammon Progressive-JV 55 DTR 417 (Cal) Panna Lai Kejrilal vs. CIT xiv) 314 ITR 343 (AAR) Hyosung Corporation xv) 210 Taxman 49 (Mad)(Mag) Chennai Port Trust v. ITO 12. Once income is required to be assessed, TDS credit has to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the TDS is deducted in the name of the another person. i) 357 ITR 396 (AP) CIT vs. Bhooratnam (pages 98-103 of Paper Book) ii) ITA no. 2417/Kol/2013 Mr. Parmanand Tiwari vs. ITO (pages 104-108 of Paper Book) iii) ITA No. 99/Hyd/2010 ITO vs. M/s Limak Devi Singh (pages 109-144 of Paper Book) 13. Any ....