ITAT Allows Sub-Contract Expenses as Company Files Sufficient Evidence:

ITAT Allows Sub-Contract Expenses as Company Files Sufficient Evidence

The ITAT held that the assessee had discharged its onus of explaining the expenses, and therefore, the additions are invalid.

ITAT Upholds Contract Expenses Claim

authorNidhidateMar 28, 2026
Last update on Mar 28, 2026
ITAT Allows Sub-Contract Expenses as Company Files Sufficient Evidence The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has recently ruled in favour of a company by deleting the additions made by the assessing officer towards the subcontract expenses of Rs 14.30 crores. The Tribunal noted that the assessee company had discharged its onus of explaining the expenses.
ITAT Grants Major Relief to Small Trader, Limits Tax Liability Using 8% Presumptive Income Rule
The assessee, Paxton Infrastructure, had received Rs.14.39 crore in contract receipts for the contract awarded by M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. The assessee had further subcontracted the work to three different companies and incurred contract expenses of Rs 14.21 crore. The issue started after the assessing officer disallowed contract expenses of Rs. 14.30 crore, claiming that the entire subcontract carried out by the assessee company was a fake and circuitous. The AO had accepted the contract receipts of Rs. 14.39 crore as income but denied the benefit of expenses incurred to earn that income. The CIT(A) partly upheld the AO's order, based on the information from the MCA website. Therefore, the assessee company approached the ITAT.
ITAT Delhi Quashes 153C Assessments Over Lack of ‘Bearing’ in Satisfaction Note
The tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted evidence like work orders from M/s Era Infra Engineering and L&T Ltd., ledger accounts, bank statements showing the payment, confirmations from subcontractors, and audited financial statements. The tribunal criticized the AO for not conducting his own verification with the subcontractor. The ITAT held that the assessee had discharged its onus of explaining the expenses, and therefore, the additions are invalid. As a result, the tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions.

About Author

Nidhi

Content Writer

Nidhi is a skilled content writer specializing in personal finance. She creates clear, engaging articles on mutual funds, investments, insurance, and wealth-building strategies. With a passion for simplifying complex financial topics, Nidhi helps readers make informed money decisions with confidence. She can be reached at [email protected]
Studycafe
New Delhi, Delhi, India
1833
Up Next

Loading suggestions…