Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: indivisible contract in The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation ... on 30 June, 2022Matching Fragments
10. Shri. Chaitanya, learned Senior Advocate, opposing the appeal submitted that the specific case of both assessee and the Revenue (2007)158 Taxman 259 (SC) (1999)105 Taxman 742 (SC) throughout is that it is a composite Contract. He contended that the ITAT has recorded in para 7 of its order that the Assessing Authority had held that the Contract was in the nature of a composite package. He contended that the Departmental Representative has argued before ITAT that it is an 'indivisible' Contract for supply, commissioning, testing etc.
11. Thus, in substance, Shri. Chaitanya argued that both the assessee and the Revenue have understood the Contract as an 'Indivisible Contract'. Therefore, the Revenue cannot be permitted to improve its case at this stage. He has placed reliance on the following authorities:
(a) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun7;
(b) Director of Income Tax Vs. AP Moller Maersk8 A.S;7
(2010)322 ITR 180 (SC) (para 8)
21. In para 14 of its order, the ITAT has recorded Revenue's contention and it reads as follows:
"14. The learned DR also placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention that the project being a composite contract, it has to be considered as one indivisible contract and the tax is to be deducted at source on such contracts having regard to the dominant nature of the contract."
(Emphasis Supplied)