TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any error in the view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as noted, besides holding that the Commissioner s order setting aside the order passed u/s 201 was not carried in appeal, had also independently examined the nature of the transaction and come to the conclusion that when the transaction was between two persons on principal to principal basis, deduction of tax at source as per section 194H, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Murlidharan with Mr. B.G. Yewale I/b M/s. Rajesh Shah Co. for the Respondent P.C.: 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 23.3.2016. The following questions are presented for our consideration : i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 8,65,06,770/- u/s. 14A for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, ignoring the fact that the decision of disallowance has not been accepted by the department? 2. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was made on principal to principal basis and was not a payment of a principal to the agent. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as noted, besides holding that the Commissioner s order setting aside the order passed u/s 201 was not carried in appeal, had also i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
