9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 21st March, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04. The present appeal is concerned with Assessment year 2002-03. 2. Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant-Revenue urges only the following following questions of law for our consideration :- (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not applicable in this case even though the assessee has failed to withhold tax u/s 195 of the Act on the interest payment made to HQ/Overseas branches ? (2) Whether on the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the Revenue being Income Tax Appeal No. 710 of 2014 in respect of the same respondent-assessee from the Order of the Tribunal for the Assessment year 2001-02. (b) An identical question as raised herein was question no. 5 raised by the Revenue in Income Tax Appeal No. 710 of 2014 (supra). For the reasons indicated therein, the question as raised herein also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Re: Question No. 2 : (a) It is an agreed position between the parties that for the subject assessment year the occasion to invoke Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) would not rise. This is so in view of the decision of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd V. DC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue states that though the revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated 31st September, 2013 in the case of M/s. Credit Lyonnais (supra) for Assessment year 2002-03. However, the same came to be rejected by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court on account of non-removal of office objection on 28th June, 2014. The Revenue has not taken any steps to have the above dismissed appeal restored. (c) It therefore appears that the revenue has accepted the Order of the Tribunal dated 31st September, 2013 in the case of M/s. Credit Lyonnais (supra). This acceptance of the view of the Tribunal in the Order dated 31st September, 2013 in case of M/s. Credit Lyonais (supra) is further evident from the fact that by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
