Gemini Industries & Imaging Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 353/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0131 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PARTHASARATHY

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI . , . . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.353/CHNY/2016 (IN ITA NO.1537/CHNY/2015) !' ' /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S.GEMINI INDUSTRIES AND- IMAGING LTD., NO.28, NEW BANGARU COLONY, K.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI-28. VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER- OF INCOME TAX, MEDIA CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI-34. [PAN: AAACG 7890 H ] ( % /APPELLANT) ( &'% /RESPONDENT) % ( / APPELLANT BY : MR.PARTHASARATHY, CA &'% ( /RESPONDENT BY : MR.R.CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ACIT ( /DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2018 ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2018 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE AS SESSEE SEEKS TO RECTIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1537/CHNY/2015 FOR THE AY 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS PETITION SAYING THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ADJUDICATED BY THE BENCH WAS APPLICABILITY OF THE R ULE 8D OF THE INCOME MP NO.353/CHNY/2016 (IN ITA NO.1537/CHNY/2015) :- 2 -: TAX RULES, 1962 TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE A ND THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE QUANTIFICATION OF NOTIONAL EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES WAS NOT ADJUDICATED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE PETITIONER FILED THE CONCISE GROUNDS ON 12.04.2016. THE ORIGINAL GR OUNDS OF THE APPEAL WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF RENDERING D ECISION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATES TO QUANTIFICATION OF NOTIONAL EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D WAS NOT DECIDED AND DISPOSED OFF. THER EFORE, RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.05.2016. ON THE OT HER HAND, THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE AND ALSO PASSED THE DETAILED SPEAKING ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NO.1537/CHNY/2015 DATED 27.05.2016. THE TRIBUNAL H AS CONSIDERED ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE TRI BUNAL HAS RELIED ON THE VARIOUS FIRMS DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES A ND CONSIDERED THE QUANTIFICATION OF NOTIONAL EXPENSES FOR DISALLOWANC E AS PER RULE 8D. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOU S PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED. MP NO.353/CHNY/2016 (IN ITA NO.1537/CHNY/2015) :- 3 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 11 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ( . . ) ( DUVVURU R.L. REDDY ) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, . /DATED: SEPTEMBER 11, 2018. TLN ( &!/0 10 /COPY TO: 1. % /APPELLANT 4. 2 /CIT 2. &'% /RESPONDENT 5. 0 &!! /DR 3. 2 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. ' /GF