TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.1544 of 2006 etc. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from C.A.No.5822 of 2007. The undisputed facts are that the assessee, a non-resident company, has its head office at Singapore and a sole branch office in India in connection with the exploration of oil. The finding returned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is that the expenses incurre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rupenjuli Tea Co. Ltd.(supra). Learned counsel appearing for the revenue contended that Revenue has not filed any appeal against the aforesaid judgment in Rupenjuli Tea Co. Ltd.(supra) because the revenue involved was meagre, i.e., a sum of ₹ 12,000/-. In support of his contention, he has placed a recent three Judge Bench decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It has been stated in the said case that the fact that different High Courts have taken different views and some of the High Courts are in favour of the revenue constituted just cause for the revenue to prefer an appeal. This Court took the view that having not assailed the correctness of the order in one case, it would normally not be permissible to do so in another case on the logic that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that merely because in some cases the revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts. We had asked learned counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
