Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. M/S Som Datt Builders And Karan Development Services Pvt. Ltd.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court considered the Supreme Court's decision in "Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [(2007) 8 SCC 463]" which states that if members of a Joint Venture have taken their receipts from the JV in their personal income tax returns and paid taxes thereon, the JV cannot be held as an 'assessee in default', and no disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(ia). The Court noted that in subsequent years (2013-14 and 2014-15), the Assessing Officer, considering the legal position, did not make any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) in similar cases. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law. No operative directions were issued as the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a joint venture (JV) named M/s Som Datt Builders and Karan Development Services Private Limited (JV), assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP) for assessment year 2012-13, was formed by Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd (SDBPL) and Karan Development Services Pvt. Ltd (KDS) for procurement of construction work. During the previous year, the JV made payments of Rs. 50,15,83,992/- to its constituent members (SDBPL and KDS) without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that tax should have been deducted under Section 194C. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance, finding no contractor-subcontractor relationship. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed this decision. The Revenue appealed this order to the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the work performed by the joint venture members for their share of the obligation creates a relationship of contractor and sub-contractor between the joint venture and its members, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 194C for tax deduction at source, and consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of 1961. Assessee's Contention: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the joint venture cannot be treated as a contractor and its constituents as sub-contractors. The JV's role was to procure the contract, and the constituents executed it in a pre-determined sharing ratio as per the agreement. Therefore, Section 194C was not applicable, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. Revenue's Contention: The Assessing Officer held that the JV was required to deduct tax at source under Section 194C on payments made to its constituents, leading to the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The Revenue appealed the deletion of this disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1 ITA.34.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Som Datt Builders and Karan Development Services Private Limited (JV) Gwalior, 09/05/2018 Shri DPS Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for brevity “the Act of 1961”), at the instance of appellant, takes exception to order dated 31.08.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench Agra in Case ITA No.349/Agra/2015 whereby the Tribunal affirmed the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal was in seisin with the issue as to whether work performed by the joint venture members for their share of the obligation would create a relationship of contractor and sub-contractor between the joint venture and its members. Facts giving rise to the issue briefly were that in respect of assessment year 2012-13 the assessee joint venture assessed in the status of Association of Persons (AOP) formed for procurement of construction work of “Indira Sagar Projects Canals (Phase-IV)” by Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd (SDBPL) and Karan Development Services Pvt. Ltd (KDS), two companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. During the year previous to the accounting year 2012-13, the assessee joint venture made payments of Rs.50,15,83,992/- to its said two constituents, on which no tax was deducted at source. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 ITA.34.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Som Datt Builders and Karan Development Services Private Limited (JV) The assessing officer disallowed the said amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of 1961 holding that the assessee was required to deduct tax at source on the payments so made under Section 194C of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance by its order dated 13.05.2015. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the basis of material facts on record and judicial pronouncement found that joint venture cannot be treated as contractor and its constituents as sub- contractor and that joint venture has been only to procure contract and the contract has been executed by the constituents in the pre-determined sharing ratio as per agreement, consequently, held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act of 1961 will not be applicable on the amount transferred by Joint Venture to its constituents and that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of 1961 is called for in respect of the amount of Rs.50,15,83,992/- transferred by the appellant to its constituents. In an appeal preferred by the department, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the view of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 ITA.34.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Som Datt Builders and Karan Development Services Private Limited (JV) Tax [(2007) 8 SCC 463]” that members of Joint Venture having taken their receipts from the Joint Venture in their personal income tax returns and have paid taxes thereon, the assessee Joint Venture cannot be held as 'assessee in default' and no disallowance can be made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act of 1961, we do not perceive any illegality in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as would raise any substantial question of law. It is worth noting at this stage that, as observed by the Tribunal that under similar facts and circumstances the assessing officer in the subsequent years i.e. accounting years 2013-14 and 2014-15 has considered the entire legal position and has not made any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of 1961 in case of joint venture. In view whereof, appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost. (Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge Judge pd Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR Date: 2018.05.14 12:27:33 -07'00'
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026