The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S. Jmc Atepl (Jv

C/TAXAP/460/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 460 of 2018 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3VersusM/S. JMC ATEPL (JV) ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 07/05/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.09.2017 raising following questions for our consideration: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition made by the A.O. by estimating the net profit at Rs.4,10,37,000/- being 11.59% of gross receipts on account of estimation of net profit? [B]Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that CIT(A) was right in holding that the income from the contract awarded by the principal cannot be said to have been accrued in the hands of the assessee AOP notwithstanding JV document executed for bidding and thus, the assessee was not liable for income estimated on the contract awarded ?” 2. The perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal would show that similar question had come up for its consideration. Such judgment of the Tribunal was considered by this Court in Tax Appeal No.393 of 2018. Revenue's appeal was dismissed in following terms: “2. Materials on record would suggest that the consortium of joint venture of two entities was constituted for execution of a project. A supplementary agreement dated 8.2.2008 between the two joint venture members was executed in which JCM, one of the members of the joint venture, was responsible for all the loss and profits. It was this JCM alone who had taken over the financial rewards and risks. The bank guarantee would be provided by JCM alone. The bank account would also be operated by JCM alone. JCM would be responsible for compliance of all statutory requirements. It was under these circumstances that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that only one member of the joint venture was essentially responsible for the risks and for execution of the work with total control over the project. The Tribunal, therefore, confirmed the view of CIT (Appeals) and rejected the revenue's contention that such further agreement could not have overridden the initial agreement document executed at the time of bidding for the contract. We are broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.” 3.In the result, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J)