9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal [ 2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] . The Revenue fails to draw any distinction on facts or law. CIT(A) has erred in partially confirming the Assessing Officer s action making the impugned disallowance of VSAT and lease line charges in question. The assessee s arguments are accordingly accepted and that of the Revenue are rejected. Disallowance of bad debts - assessee had claimed these amounts arising from downfall/market crash in Jan, 2008 due to which wealth of investors vanished and they were not in a position to pay the same as investment in question reached to negligible value resulting in huge unpaid liabilities. - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) follows lower appellate order in preceding assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n proportionate basis of ₹ 13,54,301/- and ₹ 13,70,026/- ; respectively. We find that assessee s sole ground and the Revenue s latter two grievances raising issues of VSAT and lease line charges are connected. Parties place on record copy of the tribunal s order dated 17-07-2015 in assessee s own case deciding all of these issues against the Revenue. We have heard both the parties and perused the case file. 3. We come to assessee s appeal and the Revenue s two latter grounds on the issue of proportionate disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) relating to VSAT and lease line payments. The assessee had deducted TDS u/s. 194J qua the same. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the same had to be deducted u/s. 194I of the Act. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance. The CIT(A) follows lower appellate order in preceding assessment year deciding the issue in assessee s favour. He quotes case law of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) and DCIT vs. Shreys Morakhia (2010) 5 ITR 01 (Trib) in support. We find that the co-ordinate bench (supra) has already rejected the Revenue s identical ground in preceding assessment year. It does not point out any exception on facts or law in the impugned assessment year. The Revenue s corresponding ground is decided in assessee s favour. So is our decision on its remaining two grounds being already adjudicated in asseess s appeal hereinabove. Revenue s appeal ITA 2884/Ahd/2011 fails. Assessee s appeal ITA 2754/Ahd/2011 is allowed and Revenue s appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
