Inox India Ltd., Baroda V. The Jt.CIT.,Spl.Range-2, Baroda

MA 74/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4239 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD B BENCH, BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI D.C.AGARW AL, A.M. M.A. NO.72/AHD/2009, 73/AHD/2009, 74/AHD/2009 & 75/ AHD/2009 IN ITA NO.756/AHD/2001 AND 1830/AHD/2001, 823/AHD/2003 & 1063/AHD/2003 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 INOX INDIA LTD. ABS TOWERS, 4 TH FLOOR, OLD PADRA ROAD, BARODA V/S JT. CIT (ASST.), SPECIAL RANGE-2, AAYKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA-390 007 PAN NO.AAAC14416-P (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE/APPLICANT : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR SR. ADV. FOR DEPARTMENT/RESPONDENT : SHRI M.C.PANDIT, SR.DR O R D E R PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH DATED 23.01.2009 FOR THE ABOVE ASST. YEARS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE P ARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSI DERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PARA 6 AND 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE REST ORING THE ISSUE ON GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF LEASE RENT INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTE D TO RECONSIDER IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EN TERPRISING ENTERPRISES 2 VS. DCIT [293 ITR 437], HOWEVER, THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE MATTER IN ISSUE. HE HAS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT T HEIR APPEARS MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND FRESH DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN IN THE MATTER. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTERS, WE ARE OF THE V IEW, THAT NO FRESH DIRECTION IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER BECAUSE THE ISS UE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE TRIBU NAL HAS NOT DIRECTED THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE IN THE L IGHT OF DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT AS REFERRED TO ABOVE. IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE ISSUE IS OPEN BEFORE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO RECONSIDER THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS STAN DS DISPOSED OFF. 5. AS A RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE DISP OSED OFF AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 08/01/2010 PARAS* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE RESPONDENT 2. THE DCIT, (APPELLANT). 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// DY.R/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD