TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - TAX APPEAL NO. 2 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Both these Tax Appeals involve common questions on law and therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. In these Tax Appeals u/s.260A of the Incometax Act, 1961 challenge is made to the common judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No.4692/AHD/1989 4914/AHD/1989 whereby, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed and that of the Revenue was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assesse-company is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue was dismissed. Against the said order, the present appeals have been preferred. 4. While admitting the appeal on 06.12.2000, the following substantial question of law was formulated for our consideration; Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleting the interest of ₹ 3,06,207/attributable to investment in shares? 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The issue involved in these appeals is already concluded by the decision rendered by this Court in Tax Appeal No.255/2000 decided on 17.11.2014. For ready reference, the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid appeal is reproduced hereunder; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avour of the assessee by relying upon the orders passed in the earlier years, which was concurred by the Appellate Tribunal. 6. It is required to be noted that for the A.Y. 198485, the Revenue in the case of the same assessee had filed Reference Application u/s.256(2) before the Appellate Tribunal seeking reference on the following question of law; Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of ₹ 4.50 Lacs contributed by the assessee to the Gujarat Cricket Association cannot be treated as of capital nature and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the same as revenue expenditure? 7. However, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the aforesaid Reference Application, vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
