9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal') in ITA No. 5074 and 5075/Del/2014 respectively. 2. The Assessment Years are 2009-10 and 2010-11. 3. In the appeals, the following common questions of law have been formulated by the appellant-Revenue. "1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Tribunal had itself upheld the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) in assessment order 143(3) on expenses incurred by the deductor- assessee while quashing the order u/s 201/201(1A) which was passed treating the default u/s 194-H instead of Section 194-C of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding to the contrary when it is not in dispute that while making payments the assessee has not deducted TDS as is evident from the reply of the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. treated the respondent as assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source and calculated the consequent short deductions and interest as per Section 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act. The A.O. passed a composite order for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to "A.Y."). 2009-10 and 2010-11 on 23rd March, 2013, thereby raised demand of Rs. 91,41,176.00 and 64,97,046.00 respectively for the two A.Ys. 7. Against the aforesaid order passed by the A.O., respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Ayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Sector-24, Noida (hereinafter referred to as "C.I.T. (Appeals)"). The C.I.T. (Appeals), after examining agreement between respondent-assessee and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Against the said order dated 29th December, 2014, the respondent-assessee had filed appeal before this Court being Income Tax Appeal No.99 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 13th May, 2015 had dismissed the appeal of the respondent-assessee. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee during the course of hearing of these appeals has informed the Court that the respondent-assessee had preferred SLP before the Supreme Court against the order dated 13th May, 2015 passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 99 of 2015 and the same is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. 10. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-department, and Mr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
