Hindustan - Ratna Jv, Hyderabad vs Department Of Income Tax

ITA No.1575/Hyd/2014 : Assessment year 2010-11

Dy. Commissioner of Income- V/s. M/s. Hindustan Ratna JV, tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad

( PAN - AADFK 9452 F)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Smt. G.Aparna Rao

Respondent by : Shri A.V.Raghuram

Date of Hearing 12.02.2015 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2015

ORDER

Per D.Manmohan, Vice President :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) V, Hyderabad, and it pertains to assessment year 2010-11.

2. The assessee has been created as a joint venture with two partnership firms as members. Both the partnership firms are converted into companies. The assessee has been awarded certain infrastructure contracts. The contract receipts during the year were Rs.49.07 crores, which were given on back to back sub-contract to the joint venture partners, according to the Assessing Officer. He, therefore, held that the assessee is liable to deduct tax on the amounts paid to the sub-

2 ITA No. 1575/Hyd/2014 M/s. Hindustan Ratna JV, Hyderabad

contractors. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, was that the JV and its constituent members did not have a contractor and sub- contractor relationship and consequently, there is no liability to deduct tax under S.194C of the Act, in which event, there cannot be any disallowance under S.40a(ia) of the Act.

3. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee whereas the learned CIT(A) accepted the plea, in view of the fact that under identical circumstances, the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench 'B' in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 (ITA No.372/Hyd/2013 dated 18.12.2013) held that there is no sub-contract between the JV and its constituents and therefore, the provisions of S.194C are not attracted. The learned CIT(A) respectfully followed the decision of the ITAT, cited (supra). Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us.

4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel placed copy of the order passed by the ITAT B-Bench Hyderabad in assessee's own case dated 18.12.2013 to submit that under identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal observed that there is no contractor-sub-contractor relationship between the assessee and its constituents. He thus, supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A). On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative merely relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer, but could not place any order of the Tribunal, wherein a contrary view was taken under these facts.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference, since it was based upon the view taken by the ITAT in assessee's own case, cited supra. We therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3 ITA No. 1575/Hyd/2014 M/s. Hindustan Ratna JV, Hyderabad

6. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Pronounced accordingly at the conclusion of hearing on 12.2.2015 Sd/- Sd/-

(B.Ramakotaiah) (D.Manmohan) Accountant Member Vice President

Dt/- 12th February, 2015

Copy forwarded to:

1. M/s. Hindustan Ratna JV, PlotNo.39, B.N.Reddy Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

2. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad

3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) IV, Hyderabad 4 Commissioner of Income-tax III Hyderabad

5. Departmental Representative, ITAT, Hyderabad.

B.V.S