TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er incuriam, nor is it demonstrated that this judgment has not been accepted by the Revenue, and therefore, challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that challenge is pending or this judgment has been reversed. In the absence of such material on record, we do not think that the Division Bench judgment, which discusses all the questions and which are identical to the present case, should be discarded in this manner. Division Bench judgment of this Court in Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (supra), we answer each of these questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 95 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e raised an additional ground of non-granting of interest under Section 244A on the payment of ₹ 4.50 crores made in July, 2008 on estimation basis. The Commissioner held that the assessee failed to produce any material which would demonstrate how this tax was worked out, and particularly during the course of selfassessment, and refused the relief of interest. The assessee being aggrieved and dissatisfied, approached the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal in the impugned order held that as far as the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is concerned, that invocation of Section 14A read with Rule 8D since the assessment year in question is 2008-2009, is correct. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck Holding Corporation of India Limited vs. N.C. Tewari, Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others, reported in [2015] 373 ITR 282 (Bom), while allowing the Writ Petition by the assessee, relied on the very judgments including that rendered by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Sutlej Industries Ltd. (supra). 11. However, the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Sutlej Industries Ltd. (supra) was subsequently disagreed with by another Bench of that very Court. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and now, the issue/question is remanded. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the remand to Delhi High Court is in the light of the explanation below Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 244A of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
