9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dated 4.8.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that short deduction of tax at source will not attract the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in favour of the assessee in its own case therefore request for sustaining the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2008-09 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two diagonally opposite views about applicability of the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia)of the Act. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has in the case of Ashok Kumar Parekh(186 IT R212)has dealt with the binding precedence of the High Court judgments.Here,we would also like to reproduce the a portion of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly, if the Tribunal has decided a point in favour of the assessee,he cannot ignore that decision and take a contrary view, because that would equally prejudice the assessee." Considering the above,we are taking the view which is in favour of the assessee.We are following the judgment of Samir Tekriwal (supra)of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court as well as the orders of the Mumbai Tribunal delive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
