2025 (2) TMI 1837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, whereby the ld.CIT(A) deleted the demand raised by the AO in pursuance of order passed by him under section 201(1) and 201(1A) read with section 195 of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: (i) Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the limitation of order u/s. 201 of the Act in light of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del.), which is relevant only for the cases pertaining to the period prior to 01.04.2010, when no limitation was in existence for proceedings w/s. 201 of the I. T. Act? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as per article 12.4.b of India USA treaties ? 3. A perusal of the above grounds would reveal that the Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the demand of Rs. 72,20,450/- raised by the AO vide order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on account of short fall of TDS amount on data line charges of Rs. 1,54,44,813/- at the rate of 25% and interest under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the demand raised noting that on identical issue for A.Y 2013-14,i.e the immediately preceding year, the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the demand and his order was confirmed by the ITAT dismissing the Revenues appeal in ITA No.41/Ahd/2021 vide order dated 12-10-22. 4. Aggrieved by the action of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....13-14 for our consideration. 8. On consideration of impugned orders and the material available on record, we find that both the ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal, in their respective orders for AY 2013-14, have arrived at a concurrent finding allowing the assessee's claim on merits. This establishes a precedent in favor of the assessee on the same issue under consideration. Accordingly, for the adjudication of the present appeal filed by the Revenue, it is sufficient to rely upon and refer to the ITAT's decision in AY 2013-14, as the facts and circumstances in both assessment years are materially identical. Since the ITAT had already considered and decided the issue in favor of the assessee in the earlier assessment year, there is no justifi....