TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... our consideration : "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in allowing the guest house expenses when assessee has failed to furnish any evidence to warrant its allow ability in term of the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that payment to master card international and visa card international without deduction of tax at source is not disallowable under section 40(a)(i) in view of article 26(3) of the Indo-US DTAA, when the provisions of article 26(3) were not attracted in the case, and especially for the year in question. (c) Whether, on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar and self-evident position of law during the subject assessment year, viz., absence of section 37(4) of the Act, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, question (a) dismissed. Re : Question (b) The respondent-assessee during the subject assessment year made payment to master card international and visa card international being assessment and equipment fees. The payments were made by the respond ent-assessee without deducting tax at source. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount of fees remitted, aggregat ing to Rs. 82.33 lakhs in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s being preferred when the decision of the Tribunal on identical facts in Central Bank of India (supra) is accepted and merely followed by the impugned order. 9. We have repeatedly indicated (see CIT v. State Bank of India Income Tax Appeal No. 269 of 2013 rendered on February 4, 2015 [2015] 375 ITR 20 (Bom)) that whenever the impugned order of the Tribunal merely follows its earlier orders and the Revenue has accepted the earlier order by not filing an appeal therefrom, should normally also apply in subsequent orders. This of course unless the Revenue brings on record the reasons which necessitated/justified filing of an appeal from the impugned order when no appeal was filed from the earlier order which has been followed by the impugned ....