TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has come to a conclusion that the assessee has deducted TDS under Section 194H of the Act and the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are not applicable to the present case. On law, it has followed the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. As regards the binding nature of the CBDT Circular, the Tribunal has followed the Judgment of the Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited reported in [2000 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] Thus, Tribunal having considered the case on facts and law, has come to a correct conclusion that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Act as the twin conditions which are mandatorily required to be satisfied for invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and trading of computer accessories and had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessments were concluded making a disallowance on account of depreciation on intangible assets amounting to ₹ 1,21,10,326/- to the income declared by the assessee. 3. This order was taken up in revision by the CIT(LTU) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not disallowed the expenditure under Section 40a(ia) of the Act as per the audit report submitted by the statutory auditors in Form 3-CD wherein it was specifically made clear that the assessee has not considered CBDT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of the revenue are not satisfied. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by both the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the Judgments referred to by the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion. 6. An identical question regarding Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was considered by the Calcutta High Court in S. K. Tekriwal's case (supra) and the findings given by the Calcutta High Court has been followed by the Tribunal. Similarly, as regards the binding nature of the CBDT, the Tribunal has followed the Judgment of the Apex Court in HAL (supra). In view of both the decisions cited supra, no substantial questions of law arises for our determination in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal stands d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
