For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

In the instant case, appeal is preferred by revenue against the order of CIT wherein CIT has deleted the addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- received by the assessee as a service provider on a/c of professional fees u/s 194J— By adopting project completion method the assessee is not showing profit in a particular year thereby postponing the tax liability which is incorrect on the part of the assessee. Held that— The nature of the transactions as explained by Ld. Sr. Counsel is not in dispute since similar facts have been noted by the Tribunal in earlier years. Upon perusal of impugned order, we find that first appellate authority has provided relief to the assessee by relying on the order of this Tribunal for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10. Nothing on record suggests that the aforesaid order has ever been over-ruled or negated by the orders of any higher judicial authority. Further, following the same order, the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed by the Tribunal for subsequent AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12. Therefore, we find no reason to deviate from the same and inclined to confirm the impugned order. However, the same shall be subject to verification of the fact that similar treatment has been given to the aforesaid payments by AAEPL in its books of accounts and the stated payments have not been claimed as expenditure therein. The Ld. AO is directed to delete the additions after verifying the aforesaid fact, if found correct. The assessee is directed to provide documentary evidences to substantiate the same.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 40, 194J of Income Tax Act, 1961—TDS u/s 194J on professional fee—In the instant case, appeal is preferred by revenue against the order of CIT wherein CIT has deleted the addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- received by the assessee as a service provider on a/c of professional fees u/s 194J— By adopting project completion method the assessee is not showing profit in a particular year thereby postponing the tax liability which is incorrect on the part of the assessee.

Held that— The nature of the transactions as explained by Ld. Sr. Counsel is not in dispute since similar facts have been noted by the Tribunal in earlier years. Upon perusal of impugned order, we find that first appellate authority has provided relief to the assessee by relying on the order of this Tribunal for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10. Nothing on record suggests that the aforesaid order has ever been over-ruled or negated by the orders of any higher judicial authority. Further, following the same order, the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed by the Tribunal for subsequent AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12.

Therefore, we find no reason to deviate from the same and inclined to confirm the impugned order. However, the same shall be subject to verification of the fact that similar treatment has been given to the aforesaid payments by AAEPL in its books of accounts and the stated payments have not been claimed as expenditure therein. The Ld. AO is directed to delete the additions after verifying the aforesaid fact, if found correct. The assessee is directed to provide documentary evidences to substantiate the same. Appeal dismissed.[INCOME TAX OFFICER-14 (3) (2) 458, MUMBAI VERSUS TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [48] [ITAT MUMBAI]