TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No. 90/CIT(A)-XX/Wd-34(1)/2008-09/Kol, 195/CIT(A)-XX/Wd-34(1)/2009- 10/Kol and 238/CIT(A)-XX/Wd-34(1)/2010-11/Kol respectively dated 18.03.2013 against the separate orders of the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(1), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] passed under section [in short u/s] 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 10.09.2008, 09.12.2009,28.12.2010 respectively. The appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 739/Kol/2014 is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XX, Kolkata [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 351/CIT(A)-XX/Wd-34(1)/2011-12/Kol dated 02.01.2014 against the order of the learned ITO, Ward-34(1), Kolkata [in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....down such eligibility criteria, relating to financial capability, technical expertise and past experience of having executed such large projects, for pre-qualification and thereafter bidding for the Project, which neither BBJ nor GIL fulfilled individually. However, as per the conditions in the said tender documents, BBJ and GIL together did fulfill the required pre-qualification eligibility criteria. Accordingly, BBJ and GIL formed a project-specific Joint Venture, by entering into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 29th November, 2004, for submitting pre-qualification bid for the said project. The assessee JV was pre-qualified by RVNL for submission of the financial bid, vide RVNL's letter dated 15th July, 2004 addressed to the assessee. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the contract received from RVNL. The JV received contract for the construction of second bridge over river Mahanadi in Orissa for aggregate value of Rs. 121.29 crores. The contract is executed by each of the members for his share of work which is detailed in the JV agreement between the two parties. The combined bill for work done by each of the members is submitted by the JV to RVNL. RVNL remits payment in favour of the JV net off taxes which in turn is then remitted to each of the members for their share of the work executed by them. For the year ended 31.03.2006, a total combined bill of Rs. 14.50 crores was raised on the client on the basis of work done by each of the members of AOP i.e. assessee JV. RVNL remitted mobilization adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the net profit of the assessee JV at 10% of the gross receipts and accordingly determined the net profit at Rs. 2,99,91,978/- and assessed the assessee in the capacity of AOP. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the action of the ld. AO in ascertaining the gross receipts of the assessee at Rs. 29.99 crores was incorrect in view of the fact that the said figure included the advance portion also which would be taken as income in the subsequent year. He observed that in order to avoid double taxation of the same receipt, it would be just and fair to consider the gross receipts of the assessee at Rs. 14.50 crores only. After going through the various submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) determined the net profit of the assessee at 4% of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the consortium was found only for the inter se co-ordination between the members for administrative convenience in the form of fulfilling the eligibility conditions for participation in their tender, based on collective strengths of each of the members of the consortium. We find that each member of the consortium is independently responsible for executing its respective part of the work with its own men, materials, resources, infrastructure, at its own risk. Accordingly, the profit or loss arising from execution of such work would flow individually to the members of the assessee JV. We find that this aspect is being clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 7/2016 dated 07.03.2016 which is reproduced hereunder fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f various Courts on what constitutes an AOP. 3. The matter has been examined. With a view to avoid tax-disputes and to have consistency in approach while handling these cases, the Board has decided that a consortium arrangement for executing EPC/Turnkey contracts which has the following attributes may not be treated as an AOP: a. each member is independently responsible for executing its part of work through its own resources and also bears the risk of its scope of work i.e. there is a clear demarcation in the work and costs between the consortium members and each member incurs expenditure only in its specified area of work; b. each member earns profit or incurs losses, based on performance of the contract falling strictly within its scope ....