TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Bafna. Departmemt Shri Narender Singh. O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, AM: These two cross appeals - -one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 09-10-2006 in relation to the asstt. year 2003-04. 2. Ground no.1 of the assessee s appeal is against the inclusion of Cenvat element in the closing stock. At the very outset, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record, it is noted that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in a recent order dated 26-11-2010 in Albright Wilson Chemicals (I) Ltd. vs. DCIT has decided this issue against the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ravindran Nair (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC). The present A.M. is author of the above referred order. Following the view taken by the Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceded that similar issue in the earlier years was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee. In view of this submission, we dismiss these two grounds of appeal. 6. Ground no. 1 of Revenue s appeal is against the exclusion of excise duty and sales-tax from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC. We find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue. 8. The last ground is against the reduction of 5% arm s length price in view of proviso to sec. 92C(2). Here also, the ld. A.R. candidly accepted that the Tribunal has decided this issue against the assessee in the preceding year. Respectfully following the Tribunal on the same issue in assessee s own case, we set aside the impugned order on this score. This ground is allowed. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
