9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see or any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the ld. DR basing on the material available on record. 3. Since issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the ld. DR, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 2855/Chny/2024 for AY 2007-08 for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 3 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the assessment order in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged the same before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the assessee advanced same arguments as canvassed before the Assessing Officer which are reflecting at page 7 to 10 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A), considering the said submissions and by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, for ready reference, the relevant part at para 6 is reproduced herein below: 6. Decision 6.1 I have considered the contention of the appellant. The appellant has contested that the Hon'ble ITAT had misconceived that the appellant had sought exemption from TDS on the Ground that the payment falls under article 11(3) of DTAA with Switzerland. The appellant contested that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration remain the same as that for the A.Y 2008-09, in which the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in ITA No. 1249/Mds/2012 has given a finding that the appellant was liable to deduct tax at source on the payment of interest u/s 195 of the Act and by not doing the same the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai in appellant's own case for the A.Y 2008-09, it is held that the appellant was liable to deduct tax at source on payment of interest of Rs. 12,50,693/- and it is admitted fact on part of the appellant that he did not deduct tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of payment of interest of Rs 12.50.693/-, Hence, the payment of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us, no order as such contrary to the view taken by the ITAT, Chennai Benches in assessee's own case for the AY 2008- 09 was brought on record. In the absence of any contrary view, having no option except to follow the ITAT order in assessee's own case, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assessee is liable to deduct tax on interest payment made to RBS Coutts Bank Ltd., Singapore. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. I.T.A. No. 2856/Chny/2024 - AY: 2009-10 10. We find the issues in AY 2009-10 are similar to the facts and circumstances relevant to AY 2007-08 in ITA No. 2855/Chny/2024, wherein, we have sustained the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
