|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 1903 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1528
Issues:
Challenge to orders under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2010-11 & 2009-10. Interpretation of section 80P for deduction claim. Applicability of deduction under section 80P(2)(c). Levying of interest under section 234B/D of the Act.
Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the correctness of orders dated 17th October, 2014 & 25th March, 2013 passed by the CIT(A) regarding assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the years 2010-11 & 2009-10. The parties agreed that the issue in both appeals was identical, related to deduction under section 80P of the Act, and thus, both appeals were consolidated for convenience.
2. The appellant raised several grievances for the Assessment Year 2010-11, primarily contesting the denial of deduction under section 80P and the taxation of income from other sources. The Authorized Representative highlighted that the main issue requiring adjudication was the deduction under section 80P.
3. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in a similar case where it was held that interest earned on deposits with a bank by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under section 80P. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it was established that such interest income is attributable to the business of banking and qualifies for deduction under section 80P(1) of the Act.
4. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case analogous to the earlier decision and, in the absence of any contrary binding decision, upheld the eligibility of the interest earned by the assessee for deduction under section 80P. Consequently, the order of the Assessing Officer was set aside, and the appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was allowed.
5. Given the identical nature of the facts for the Assessment Year 2009-10, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised for that year as well, following the same reasoning and decision as for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore, both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed based on the interpretation and application of section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's challenge to the orders under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2009-10, specifically regarding the deduction claim under section 80P. The decision was based on the eligibility of interest income earned by the assessee for deduction under section 80P, as established in a previous case and supported by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's ruling. The Tribunal's judgment allowed both appeals, emphasizing the consistent application of the legal provisions and precedents in determining the tax liability of the appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1527
Detention orders under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - non opportunity to assail the order of his detention - Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent, that the order of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act was passed on 11.6.1976. Immediately after the passing of the aforesaid order, on the same day, the Government of Gujarat issues a declaration under Section 12A, with reference to the detention of the appellant. Again, on the lifting of the emergency on 21.3.1977, the declaration under Section 12A ceased to be operative, with reference to the detention of the appellant. At the beginning of the order of detention, and at the time of revocation thereof, whilst the detention order subsisted only within the limited scope of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act read with Section 12A thereof, there was really no occasion for the appellant to assail the same thereafter, on any of the grounds as may have been available to him.
We are satisfied, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, specially the position highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant, as has been noticed hereinabove, the appellant had no occasion whatsoever to challenge to the order of his detention, on the grounds available to him, while the detention order subsisted under the limited scope of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act read with Section 12A thereof after 21.3.1977, as the order under Section 3 could not have been the subject matter of challenge as the detenu was released on the same day.
In the present controversy, the appellant had no opportunity whatsoever to assail the order of his detention, after his release. As soon as the declaration under Section 12A of the COFEPOSA Act was revoked, the appellant was ordered to be released. His release undoubtedly was a release from detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act.
In the above view of the matter, we are of the view, that the determination rendered by the High Court in not allowing the appellant to raise a challenge to the order of his detention dated 11.6.1976, was wholly unjustified. The order passed by the High Court is therefore liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside. The appellant is relegated back to the High Court, so as to enable him to press his claim, on the grounds as may be available to him (to assail the order of his detention dated 11.6.1976). It is only after the determination of the High Court, that it will be open to the authorities to proceed with the action taken against the appellant under Section 6 of the SAFEMA Act, and that too, if the appellant fails in his attempt, to successfully assail the order of his detention.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1526
Addition on unexplained share capital - discharge of onus laid down under section 68 - Held that:- During the course of search, no incriminating documents were found. Therefore, no notice can be issued U/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act because no proceeding was pending before the Assessing Officer, which has abated for issue of notice on the date of initiation of search. Thus, on technical ground, the assessee’s appeal succeeds and order passed U/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act is held void ab initio.
On facts also, the assessee has produced before the Assessing Officer copy of share application, confirmation of the cash creditors, copy of PAN, copy of Board resolution, copy of Director’s report, auditor’s report, copy of balance sheet, copy of P&L account, copy of bank account in all the cases to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors. The ld Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of investigation conducted by the ITO, Investigation Wing, Kolkata but the ld Assessing Officer of the assessee has not clarified what inquiry had been conducted and what evidences collected which goes against the assessee. The notice U/s 131 issued by the ITO, Investigation Wing, Kolkata were served in case of Vidya Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Shivarpan Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd., but compliance could not be made on the given date because concerned officer was on leave. In case of Middleton Goods Pvt. Ltd. and Lactrodryer Marketing Pvt. Ltd., notices were served on the assessee and in compliance to the notice, the party submitted all the documents in the IT office - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1525
Sale of shares - business income or short-term capital gain - Held that:- All the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order as discussed above, which have remained un-rebutted or uncontroverted by the ld. D.R., are considered in the light of the relevant CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 as well as the judicial pronouncements cited on behalf of the assessee and relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order, we find ourselves in agreement with the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the relevant shares were purchased and held by the assessee as investment and, therefore, the profit arising from the transactions of purchase and sale thereof is liable to tax in the hands of the assessee as short-term capital gain and not business income. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1524
Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) - Held that:- The show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed.
See case of CIT Vs. MWP Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 1214 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] wherein held that mere mention of "Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)( c) initiated separately" in assessment order, does not amount to a direction under Section 271(1)( (c) for levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1523
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- Although the ITAT may have erred in holding that the issuance of notice under Section 153A (1) (a) of the Act was invalid, it is not in dispute that qua the Respondent Assessee no incriminating material was found during the search so as to justify the addition made in the assessment order passed pursuant to the issuance of such notice. As held in several decisions including Kabul Chawla (2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), no assessment can be framed in terms of the Section 153A of the Act in the absence of the any incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the net result is that the assessment order will in any event have to remain quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1522
Addition being 1% of the total wages and salary - Held that:- We find that the assessee had offered the additional income on account of discrepancy in record in respect of certain payments made to certain parties on account of wages and labour charges. The AO has also made the disallowance finding discrepancies in the salary register. Hence, in our view, telescopic benefit is required to be given to the assessee in respect of the income offered on this account. Since the assessee has already declared additional income of ₹ 5,67,047/- in this respect, hence, in our view, no further disallowance of ₹ 1,79,732/- was warranted in this case. In view of the above, addition made on this issue is hereby ordered to be deleted.
Interest under section 234B - Held that:- We find that as per sub section (3) of section 234 of the Act as it stood and applicable for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee is liable to pay the interest, for the period commencing on the day following the date of determination of total income under sub section (1) of section 143 or under section 143(3) as the case may be and ending on the date of reassessment or re-computation under section 147 or section 153A. On the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of the reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble Karnataka Bombay High Court in “Vijay Kumar Saboo, HUF & Others. Vs. ACIT” (2011 (7) TMI 135 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) has also analyzed the above provision and has held that where in a case, the income is determined consequence to the filing of the return under section 143(1) or 143(3) and the income is increased in consequence of the reassessment proceedings, either under section 147 or under section 153A of the Act, the interest will be leviable as per the provisions of sub section (3) of section 234B of the Act. In view of the above, the AO is directed to calculate and compute the interest accordingly.
Addition u/s 68 on unexplained bank deposits - Held that:- The assessee has explained the source of entire deposits of more than ₹ 7 lakhs, we do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities in disbelieving the source of above deposits of meager amount of ₹ 18,200/-. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1521
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) denied - Held that:- The assessee before us had furnished complete details with regard to the computation of income in his hands and also the details with regard to the computation of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in Form No.10CCB, which was filed along with return of income. Though the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act was denied to the assessee, but because of judicial propositions on the issue of allowability of the said deduction, we find that the assessee had prima facie bonafide claim vis-à-vis the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. In such circumstances, where the assessee had furnished complete details and the claim of the assessee was a bonafide claim, merely because the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act was denied to the assessee, does not merit the levy of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we find merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ). - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1520
Disallowance vls 40(a)(ia) - amount payable or paid by the end of the year - Held that:- Supreme Court in Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1131 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] has approved the special bench judgment in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd.[2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ] in which it was held that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts 'payable' as of 31st March and not to amounts already 'paid' during the year. Since the said matter has now reached finality, it is held that the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) would apply only to amounts which are "payable" as on 31st of March 2006.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1519
TDS u/s 194C OR 194J - payments for production of programmes for broadcasting and telecasting and payments for uplinking charges - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prasar Bharati (2006 (11) TMI 159 - DELHI High Court ) holding that placement charges/ carriage fees is covered under the definition of work contracts and therefore tax was to be deducted at source on such payments under section 194C, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1518
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) we hold that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 30.12.2009 for A.Y. 2007-08 for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand is invalid and consequently, the penalty proceedings are also invalid. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1517
Disallowance of deduction u/s u/s.80IA(4) in the asst. framed u/s.153A - Held that:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the preceding assessment following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. and other [2010 (2) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and various other decisions allowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. However, as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we find no disallowance has been made u/s.80IA(4) in the assessment order passed u/s.153A of the Act. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee becomes academic in nature.- Decided in favour of assessee
Addition made u/s.69B on account of difference in valuation in the asst. framed u/s.153A - Held that:- In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or in 153A proceeding which would show that non-addition u/s.69B was erroneous, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s.69B of the Act we find no infirmity in the same.- Decided in favour of assessee
Depreciation on windmill and MEDA charges - Held that:- The AO has accepted the rate of depreciation as claimed by the assessee and MEDA charges was allowed as business expenditure. No incriminating material whatsoever was found during the course of search or 153A proceedings. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd./ Continental Warehousing Corporation (2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) has held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed by making additions which is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search or during 153A proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition on the basis of loose papers found during the course of search - Held that:- A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has not carried out any verification in support his contention that notings conclusively prove that the entries in the loose papers are infact speed money/bribe paid to various persons whose names are mentioned against each figure. On a pointed query raised by the Bench during the course of hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative also candidly admitted that no such exercise has been done either by the Investigation Wing after the search or by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, it is not correct to hold that the payments noted on the seized papers indicate speed money/bribe paid by the assessee company to various persons. However, considering the presumption laid down in section 132(4A) of the I.T. Act, since these papers are found with the assessee company, therefore, the AO is justified in holding that the assessee company has paid the amount noted on the seized papers and the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition - Decided against assessee
Addition u/s.41(1) - Held that:- CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO u/s.41(1) of the I.T. Act as the liabilities do not cease to exists merely by efflux of time. - Decided in favour of assessee
Depreciation claim - Held that:- No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) allowing higher depreciation @80% on civil work foundation and related labour cost of windmill. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition of expenses made by cheque - Held that:- We find the finding given by the Ld.CIT(A) that the seized documents reveal payment of ₹ 1.5 crores in cheque prior to 14-04-2007 by B.T. Patil and the share of the assessee in the said amount is ₹ 75 lakhs for which the assessee is entitled to a relief of ₹ 75 lakhs on account of payable of expenses made by the cheque is not based on any cogent evidence and proper appreciation of facts. On a pointed query by the Bench during the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was also unable to clarify as to how this deduction/relief was justified on the basis of notings only on the loose paper. In view of the above, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue is set aside - Decided against assessee
Unaccounted expenditure incurred by the assessee on the basis of paper seized from the residence of Shri. D A Bhat - Held that:- Admittedly, the papers containing certain expenditure with dates mentioned therein are not considered by the assessee while working out the unaccounted income. During the hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was also not in a position to clarify the basis of deletion made by the CIT(A) and justify such deletion. In view of the above we reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the ground raised by the revenue is allowed. - Decided against assessee
Addition on account of undervaluation of WIP - Held that:- The assessment had not been completed for the A.Y. 2009-10 when the search took place and the same was pending. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee was unable to explain the non consideration of work-in-progress in the final accounts. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld.CIT(A) while confirming the addition on account of undervaluation of work-in-progress we find no infirmity in the same.- Decided against assessee
Levy of interest u/s.234A - Held that:- A non-obstante clause has been inserted and with a defined intent. In our opinion, once the search takes place on a person and the due date for filing of the return u/s.139(1) has not expired he can file the return only after the issue of notice u/s.153A. He is not required to file the return u/s.139(1). Therefore, the authorities below are not justified in levying interest u/s.234A of the I.T. Act for a period from 31-10-2009 to 20-07-2010 - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1516
Seeking grant of bail - Consignment of gold seized - No procedure under Chapter XIV of the Act, has been initiated for confiscating the goods - Held that:- the applicant was arrested on 24.02.2015 and was in judicial custody pursuant to the lodgment of FIR by the police department, the Custom Department has arrested the applicant on 29.08.2015 i.e. after more than six months. There might be some investigation during this period, however it is desirable to comment anything about the reasons for not arresting the applicant for considerable long time. The complaint has also been filed on 60th day from his arrest. This also suggests that customs department has sufficient time to investigate the case i.e. from 24.02.2015 to 27.10.2015 i.e. date of filing the complaint before the learned Magistrate. As far as allegations that in past also, the applicant had indulged in similar activities, which is under investigation, that would not be the ground to reject the application, since the authority had sufficient time to complete the investigation. By relying upon the decision rendered by Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala V/s. Raneef [2011 (1) TMI 1396 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Sanjay Chandra[2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT], the applicant is behind bar since more than 10 months which is considered as long period and it is equally true that investigation is almost over. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail and hence the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2015 (12) TMI 1515
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) AO did not verified the issues with regard to claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act at the time of completion the assessment - Held that:- Ee are of the opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous insofar as it is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT assumed his jurisdiction to revise the assessment order on the issues, which are considered by the A.O. in the assessment order. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT under sec. 263 of the Act is not maintainable; accordingly, we quashed the CIT’s order and restore the assessment order as CIT cannot assume the jurisdiction on the same issue, which is already considered by the Assessing Officer on the guise of revision by stating that the Assessing Officer has conducted inadequate enquiry or there is a lack of enquiry - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1514
Sustainability of redemption fine and penalty imposed - Export of ‘Leather of beige colour’ along with certificate of Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) - CLRI certified that sample did not satisfy the norms and conditions - Held that:- In view of the certificate of CLRI and its clarification it is obvious that the impugned goods were attempted to be exported in violation of export restriction as a result of which they were rendered liable to confiscation. Therefore, as per categorical report of CLRI and its clarification, the Order-in-Appeal is not sustainable in setting aside the redemption fine and penalty. - Decided in favour of revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1513
Transfer pricing adjustment - ALP adjustment - appropriateness of adopting CUP method as against the TNMM for determination of the ALP - Held that:- As the present appeals are concerned, the Court finds the impugned order of the ITAT to be well reasoned and researched to hold that the assessee’s contention to the effect that the arm’s length price of services rendered to, or received from, the associated enterprises, which was computed on the basis of the same 50:50 model as is the industry norm and as has been employed by the assessee for computing similar services to the independent enterprises, was at arm’s length. Accordingly, the impugned arm’s length price adjustment stands deleted.
The legal principles governing the determination of ALP in a TP adjustment exercise have been expounded lucidly by the ITAT in the impugned orders. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1512
Reopening of assessment - assessee sold his immovable property and had earned long term capital gain claiming deduction under section 54-EC on investment in Rural Electrification Corporation - Held that:- The reasons recorded by the assessing officer do not even suggest that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The revenue has not, even if possible to do so, demonstrated any such failure on the part of the assessee. In fact, counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that not only that all such declarations were in the returns filed, during the assessment also this issue had come up for consideration. The petitioner in communication dated 03.09.2010 had pointed out to the assessing officer the investments made with the Rural Electrification Corporation and in purchase of immovable property.
Thus, quite apart from the reasons recorded by the assessing officer not indicating any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, even the record suggests to the contrary. Reopening quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1511
MAT computation - Working of tax liability on book profit u/s.115JB - receipt of dividend income - Reopening of assessment - Held that:- In the computation of income presented by the petitioner along with the return of income, the petitioner had shown book profit as per Section 115JB of the Act of ₹ 4,23,47,912/-. This figure is significant and would appear in our later observations as well. In the profit and loss account, the petitioner showed dividend income of ₹ 15,458/- as income from other sources and showed profit before tax of ₹ 4,23,47,912/-. For computation of book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB, the petitioner adopted such amount of ₹ 4,23,47,912/- as shown in the profit and loss account. There were no additions and deductions to be made as referred to in Section 115JB and therefore, the final figure of book profit for the said provision came to the said original amount of ₹ 4,23,47,912/-.
Thus for all purposes whether for the computation of income for normal tax provisions or as per the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, the said amount of ₹ 15,458/- was duly reflected and was accounted for. The Assessing Officer formed wrong belief that for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, the said amount of ₹ 15,458/- disappeared from the consideration.Under the circumstances, notice of reopening being bad in law, is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1510
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Merely because the assessing officer has made additions in a particular manner would not mean that the Commissioner would be confined to scrutiny of the methodology adopted by the assessing officer and to proceed either to confirm or to delete the additions, if such methodology is not found entirely satisfactory. Even without the aid of these wide powers, the appellate authority would have inherent power to uphold the additions on correct application of law and facts if sustainable even if on the reasoning of the assessing officer is not found correct. In other words, the appellate authority is not bound by the reasoning of the assessing officer and can through different route reach the same conclusion.
Under the circumstances, we do not think that the powers under section 263 of the Act can be exercised when, though addition has been made, on the footing of the premises which are not to the satisfaction of the Commissioner and, therefore, to make additions on better premises with better reasoning or on different application of legal principles.In the result, in our opinion, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. When the question is the very foundation of the notice and jurisdiction of the Commissioner to exercise such powers, the question of relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy or to permit the Commissioner to complete the proceedings and thereafter to direct the petitioner to take appeal route does not arise. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1509
Maintainability of appeal under Section 260A - whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the reference application filed by the department, though as per rule 45 of Appellate Tribunal Rule 1962, the tribunal may send the statement to the High Court without annexures? - Held that:- The impugned order has not been passed in appeal by the Tribunal but consequent to the order of this Court dated 2nd February, 1999 allowing the Revenue's application under Section 256(2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed consequent to the order dated 2nd February, 1999 of this Court in advisory jurisdiction. The impugned order of the Tribunal is not in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction for it to be an order amenable to appeal under Section 260A of the Act.
The order passed by the Tribunal consequent to the order passed under Section 256(2) of the Act is not an order passed in Appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. An application under Section 256(2) of the Act and the order passed by this Court thereunder are in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction. Therefore, any grievance of the parties in respect of the Tribunal, not complying with the order of this Court for whatever reason could not be remedied by an Appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Thus Appeal as filed from the impugned order is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act.
............
|
9911796707
