|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 678 Records
-
2016 (2) TMI 1151 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH
Disallowing exemption u/s 11 - appellant has not followed its objectives in letter & spirit without specifying any basis that objective of the appellant falls in the proviso to Sec. 2(15) i.e. appellant is carrying on activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business - Held that:- Since as stated above the facts in the present case are identcial to that in the case of Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust (2015 (9) TMI 902 - ITAT AMRITSAR), respectfully following the same we hold that the assessee trust is carrying out charitable activity of advancement of public utility and the business activity carried out by it are incidental to the attainment of its main object and thus the proviso to section 2(15) is not attracted in the assessee case. We therefore hold that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 11. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1148 - ITAT KOLKATA
Revision u/s 263 - Understatement of receipts - Held that:- When the ground of revision u/s. 263 is not mentioned in the show cause notice issued u/s. 263, that issue cannot be the subject matter of revision proceedings in the order passed u/s. 263. Hence the addition proposed towards understatement of receipt of ₹ 1,20,49,196/- is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order passed by the ld.CIT u/s. 263 is modified to this extent.
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - addition towards various expenses for non-compliance of TDs provisions - applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- We find that if the payees have included the subject mentioned receipts in their books/returns of income, then second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should have to be invoked and no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be made. . We also find that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been held to be retrospective in operation by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd reported in (2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT). Thus we deem it fit and appropriate, to set aside the issue to the file of the ld.AO to decide the impugned issue u/s. 40(a)(ia) in the light of applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as mentioned herein above and in the light of said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd (supra).
-
2016 (2) TMI 1147 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) on account of short deduction of tax - Held that:- We are faced with two diagonally opposite views about applicability of the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia)of the Act, we are taking the view which is in favour of the assessee that expenses are not liable to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia)on account of short deduction of tax. We are following the judgment of Samir Tekriwal (2000 (2) TMI 40 - BOMBAY High Court)- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1146 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition made under section 43B - assessee has paid service tax in advance before availing the corresponding services - Held that:- The assessee has debited the amount of ₹ 22.91 crores to the profit and loss account pertaining to the assessment year under consideration also. Since the amount of ₹ 22.91 crores has been allowed in the assessment year 2006-07 and dispute relating to the same has attained the finality, the assessee is precluded from claiming the same again in the assessment year 2007-08. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO was justified in disallowing the same in the year under consideration. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) passed on the issue relating to ₹ 22.91 crores and direct the AO to add the same on substantive basis.
With regard to the balance amount of ₹ 2.93 crores added by the AO, we notice that the ld. CIT(A) has restored the matter to the file of the AO for considering the same afresh in the light of decision rendered by him in the assessment year 2006-07. Since the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with his order on this issue.
In the assessment year 2008-09, we notice that the ld. CIT(A) has restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the same afresh in the light of the decision rendered by him in the assessment year 2006-07. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in this year also as the AO has been directed to examine the issue afresh.
Disallowance made u/s 14A - Held that:- Considering the fact that the assessee has made investment in one company only, that the investment was made long back, that the assessee has received dividend from that company only, we are of the view that the disallowance computed at 0.5% of the investment value of shares is reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Disallowance of prior period expenses - Held that:- It is a well settled proposition of law that the income relating to one year cannot be assessee in any other year. Under the same principle, the expenditure relating to one year cannot be claimed in any other year. Both the principles shall have exception, if it is expressly provided in the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the tax authorities are not justified in disallowing entire amount of prior period expenses, while assessing the entire amount of prior period income, without bringing support of any of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee was justified in computing the disallowance by netting off the prior period income against the prior period expenditure. We further notice that the assessee has offered net income in assessment year 2007-08, i.e., the prior period income was more than the period expenditure. We direct the AO to accept the disallowance/ computation made by the assessee in this regard.
Addition made u/s 145A in respect of MODVAT amount- Held that:- We set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and restore them to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the same afresh in all the four years under consideration, by duly considering the information and explanations furnished by the assessee. With regard to the deposit made with Port Trust, we make it clear that the same is not includible in the computation made u/s 145A of the Act, if it does not fall in the category of tax, duty, cess or fee levied under any law. Hence, the same shall be liable to included in the adjustments made u/s 145A of the Act, only if it is shown that the payment was made under authority of any law. Further, if the deposit so made is refundable to the assessee, then also the question of including the same u/s 145A does not arise.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1145 - ITAT MUMBAI
Method of computation of ALV - AO invoked the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act on the premise that the annual value of the property deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year, therefore, the municipal valuation is not binding upon the Department - Held that:- CIT (A) has rightly relied on the binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Smitaben N Ambani vs. CWT [2009 (1) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that rateable value of the properties determined by the Municipal Authorities shall be the yard stick. It is also noted that in the cases of Shri Satyapal Jain (husband of the assessee) for A.Y. 2006-07 and other family members the amount is to be taxed u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act and would be rateable at municipal value. In view of this uncontroverted position, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1143 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Proportionately allowing the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - Tribunal justifcation in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in proportionately allowing the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the I T Act, 1961 out of profits in respect of wings “A” to “F” - Held that:- The impugned order of the Tribunal while dismissing the Revenue's appeal, had followed the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Learned Counsel further states that the present appeal memo has been filed only in view of the fact that the Revenue has challenged the decision of this Court in Vandana Properties (supra), in the Apex Court and the same is awaiting disposal.
The question as formulated stands concluded in favour of the Respondent-Assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1139 - ITAT CHENNAI
Reference of matter to DVO - non rejection of books of accounts - unaccounted investment - Held that:- As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, when the assessee is maintaining books of account, the Assessing Officer cannot refer the matter to the DVO without rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has sold the flats and majority of the purchasers of the flat occupied the same. Therefore, the improvement made by the respective purchasers of the flat has to be considered only in the hands of the respective purchasers and not in the hands of the assessee. As observed by the CIT(A), when the purchasers of the flats engaged the contractors to make improvement in the flats, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no addition can be made in the hands of the present assessee. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (2) TMI 1130 - ITAT BANGALORE
Penalty u/s 271 - invalid notice - Held that:- Notice issued to the assessee does not specify the default of the assessee. In our opinion, notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271 of the Act, issued for the impugned assessment year was invalid. Ex-consequenti the penalty order is set aside.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1129 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- From the e facts and figures not only the source of investments but the source of source has also been established. All the three ingredients required for fulfillment of provisions of section 68 of the Act are met and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of loan from M/s. Golden Laminates Ltd - Held that:- The assessee had received a total loan of ₹ 255 lacs from M/s. Golden Laminates Ltd., and the assessee had filed a confirmation from the M/s. Golden Laminates Ltd., regarding advancing a loan of ₹ 255 lacs by them and in the confirmation the date, cheque no. and other relevant information alongwith company’s PAN was also filed. The AO had accepted the loan of ₹ 1.05 crore as genuine and he has rejected the loan of ₹ 1.20 crore on the plea that the same does not appear in the bank statement of M/s. Golden Laminates Ltd., whereas the ld. CIT(A) has made a finding of fact that the source of this ₹ 1.20 crore was from HDFC Bank and the ld. CIT(A) had also forwarded a copy of Bank Account of HDFC to AO for his comments. The AO in the remand report has not objected to the documents and has requested the ld. CIT(A) to consider the case while disposing of the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has further made a finding of fact that in the statement of HDFC, all the entries relating to advancing of loan of ₹ 1.20 crores to assessee do appear. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (2) TMI 1124 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal admitted on Question Nos. 4,5 and 7.
(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred on Salary of drivers/pilots in total disregard to the provision laid in clause (A) to (P) of sub section (2) of Section 15WB of the Income Tax Act?
(5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred on insurance premium for motor car/ aircraft by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case CIT v/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. [1993 (9) TMI 82 - KERALA High Court] without appreciating the fact the same was rendered in connection with allowability of deduction u/s. 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when Fringe Benefit Tax was not brought on Statute?
(7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on maintenance of accommodation not in the nature of guest house in total disregard to the provision laid in clause (A) to (P) of sub section (2) of Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act?".
-
2016 (2) TMI 1123 - ITAT BANGALORE
Computation of the deduction under Section 10-A - Exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign exchange from export turnover as well as from total turnover - Held that:- As held by the Hon’ble High Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) expenses excluded from export turnover had to be excluded from the total turnover also while working out the eligible deduction.
Exclusion of certain comparables by the DRP for the purpose of determining the arm’s length price [ALP] - TPA - Held that:- The assessee is a company and engaged in the business of developing software solution services as well as rendering sales and support services for its products. The assessee provides two category of services; software development and sales & marketing support services. The assessee has entered into separate agreements for provision of software development as well as sales & marketing services to its group EFI. Companies functinally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparables.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1119 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation on goodwill - Held that:- Depreciation can be claimed on goodwill is answered in the affirmative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT]. No substantial question of law arises.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1118 - ITAT JAIPUR
Compensation paid to farmers for using their land for mineral extraction - justification for claim of revenue expenditure - Held that:- We find that the issue raised in this ground has already been decided by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier AYs holding that the payment made by the assessee to farmers is a part of cost of Gypsum only and no capital asset is acquired by the assessee by incurring this expenditure. Nature of loss to farmers is immaterial while judging the nature of expense in the hands of assessee and therefore same cannot be basis for treating the expenditure as capital in nature - Decided in favour of assessee
Contribution to State Renewal Fund - allowable revenue expenditure - Held that:- This issue raised in this ground has already been decided by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier AYs holding that that the contribution made by the assessee to a Public Welfare Fund which is connected or related with his business is an allowable deduction u/s 37 as it was provided for the benefit of the employees - Decided in favour of assessee
Deduction for prior period expenses - Held that:- In our view the case of the revenue is required to be dismissed as the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10, even otherwise, in view of the judgment in the matter of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT), the appeal of the revenue is required to be dismissed as the rate of tax remain the same in the present year as well as in the subsequent year. Therefore, there will not be any tax effect and the entire exercise of the revenue is only academic in nature.
Addition on account of donations - Held that:- CIT (A) correctly deleted the disallowance by holding that the same were contributions made for various activities which also involved display of appellant’s banner and therefore these expenses had advertisement and publicity value for the appellant. However, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- in respect of payment made to Rose Society by relying on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 where the disallowance made by AO in respect of payment made to Rose Society was confirmed by Hon’ble ITAT
Disallowance of social welfare expenses - Held that:- The payment made to Rose Society amounting to ₹ 50,000/-, in our view is not in respect of any activity connected necessarily and exclusively for the purpose of business and do not qualify the expenditure u/s 37 of the IT Act. Even otherwise, similar ground of the assessee has been dismissed by the Tribunal in its earlier order.
Disallowance in respect of amortization of mining land and leasehold land - allowable expenditure u/s 37 - contention of the assessee is that the sole purpose of acquisition of mining land is to exploit it for extraction of mineral resources and extraction of such mineral is the only economic use of the land for the assessee - Held that:- With the passage of guidelines for protecting the environment, now it is the duty of the lesser/assessee to submit and execute the mine closing plan so as to ensure that the land is used subsequent to the closure of the mining operation. Even otherwise, the mining activity is done not on the surface of the earth but on the core towards the lower side of the surface. The surface, can be put to use for beneficial purposes after the term of lease/mining activity is over and it can be exploited for commercial purposes by the owner/appropriate authority. The assessee was taxed on the basis of the submission made by it before the AO before the assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11 is finalized. The mere acceptance of the methodology by the AO for A.Y. 2011-12 will not withhold us to decide the issue on merit and in law for the A.Y. 2010-11. As per the law and principle, the authorities situated in lower ladder/tire of hierarchy is required to abide law/adjudication done by the superior authority. This is the only way the judicial system works. The AO is a quasi judicial authority and bound to follow the principle laid down by the Tribunal and not the vice versa. Therefore, the submission of the ld. A/R for the assessee on this count is also rejected. However, it is made clear that the assessee would be entitled to all benefits as available in law and the assessee will not be subjected to double taxation for the A.Y. 2011-12. The AO is directed to give effect to the above said direction and nullify the effect of double taxation, if any, as claimed by the assessee. In the light of the above, ground of the assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance paid to the DMG for computerization of its data - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the computerization. There are other lakhs of mine owners/licencees who are/will be benefitted by way of computerization of the department. Moreover, it is the bounden duty of the Government to computerize its department. Once the assessee is paying the lease rent and other charges to the Government for acquiring the rights to mines and minerals, the department, is not expected to ask any amount over and above the statutory charges. Any contribution made by the assessee to the Government for computerization, would be at its own cost and pay-roll. That cost incurred by the assessee for computerization of the department, in our view is not going to benefit the assessee exclusively and wholly. It may be a good-will gesture or an effort to oblige the bureaucrats by the assessee. We are not expressing any opinion/requirement of paying such huge amount to the department for the purpose of computerization
Reduction of claim u/s 80IA by not considering the income from sale of CERs and liquidated damages as derived from the business of power generation undertaking - Held that:- The products or the articles supplied are goods. Excise duty, if not exempt, is payable in many cases on ad valorem basis. Similarly, sales tax, if not exempt, is also payable. The standing charges obviously do not form part of the supply made and are not treated as sale consideration or the price of the goods on which excise duty or the sales tax etc. would be or is payable. Keeping in view the nature and character of the standing charges, evidence and finding regarding nature and character of the manufacturing activity undertaken, it cannot be said that the said charges were paid for or towards sale consideration of the goods supplied. This is not a case where goods were produced but not purchased or supplied etc. The factual matrix as found does not support the claim of the appellant under Section 80IC of the Act. We add by way of caveat that in a given case, and depending upon the factual matrix/evidence, charges similar to standing charges may represent cost/sale price or price for failure to purchase produced/manufactured goods. - Decided against assessee
Not allowing the income of the assessee from sale of CERs as capital receipt - Held that:- CER is capital receipt and the AO is directed to treat the sale of CER as capital receipt. Thus the ground of the assessee on account of sale of CER is allowed.
Deduction in respect of mines closure expenses - Held that:- As per matching principle as well as the mercantile system of accounting, the liability is allowable in principle under section 37 of the Act. In view of the above, the ground of the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to give the benefit of deduction towards mines closure expenses in the A.Y. 2010-11.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1114 - ITAT AMRITSAR
TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tax at source - payments payable at the end of the year or during the year - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- “M/s. Merilyn Shipping” [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] held that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to the expenditure which is payable as on 31st March of every year and that the provisions of this section cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the year without deducting tax at source. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) followed this decision of ITAT. This decision of ITAT has not been upset. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the Department’s appeal, as noted hereinabove. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1113 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of expenses - Income has been assessed after taking profit of 0.15% of the deposits - Held that:- Consistent with the earlier decisions taken on similar issues same we hold that the disallowance of expenditure should be restricted to 50% and balance 50% of expenditure shall be allowed. Accordingly, we hold that a disallowance of expenditure should be restricted to 50% and balance 50% of expenditure shall be allowed. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1111 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of difference in details of closing stock - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted the addition by coming to the conclusion that the accounts of the assessee had been audited and the closing stock of ₹ 31,53,914/- appears therein, the AO had no basis for making an addition of ₹ 24,143,676/- only on the basis of a working submitted on behalf of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) further held that as the assessee had pleaded clerical error, the AO was not justified in making the addition only on the basis of closing stock summary submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee and supposedly drawn up by the office accountant while ignoring the audit report and audited accounts. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that no reliable material forms the basis of the addition of ₹ 24,14,676/- and the same deserves to be deleted. We find that the ld. CIT(A) was correct in arriving at the conclusion
-
2016 (2) TMI 1106 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment - receipt of gift - reopening on the basis of report of Deputy Director(Inv.) - Held that:- "General" information was taken as good enough to make addition. The other material which their Lordships of Supreme Court called "specific" material was required to be collected. As noted earlier, general material collected about a creditor to be hawala is not sufficient even to validly initiate a reassessment proceeding. It cannot be good material to sustain an assessment. Therefore, on facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to hold that genuineness of entry, creditworthiness of the creditor etc. has not been established on record. Thus find no good ground to sustain addition of cash credit or commission allegedly paid by the assessee to obtain fictitious entry. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1105 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition on sized material from search - addition on purchase of shares - Held that:- It is not in dispute that seized papers were found and recovered during the course of search in the case of Shri Surinder Gulati. These documents were used against Shri Surinder Gulati in his assessment and all these seized papers have been mentioned in the assessment order of Shri Surinder Gulati dated 28.02.2013 for assessment year 2006-07. The statement of Shri Surinder Gulati at the time of search was recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act which is also reproduced in his assessment order as above. The seized paper alongwith small blue diary marked ‘Raymond’ were confronted to him in which he has admitted that diary was written in his handwriting and belongs to him. He has also explained the abbreviations contained in the seized paper but none of the abbreviations were having any link or connection with the assessee.
In answer to one of the question, while referring to the seized paper, he has explained that these are estimates and the actual fact remained that he has received money @ ₹ 3900/- per share. Shri Surinder Gulati did not make any allegation against the assessee in respect of shares purchased by the assessee. The seized paper as referred in his assessment order have been reproduced in which, on certain shares the value have been shown @ 3900/- as well as in another paper, the same rate is mentioned against the total shares of 3258 and in the third seized paper, total sale proceeds of 3258 shares have been considered by Assessing Officer in a sum of ₹ 2.13 Crores. This sale consideration was divided by 3258 shares and Assessing Officer concluded the value of each share at ₹ 6554/-. However, all the above material on record i.e. statement of Shri Surinder Gulati and the seized paper did not make any allegation against the assessee of purchase of shares at ₹ 6554/-. It was a presumption of the Assessing Officer that when one of the transactions is conducted by Shri Surinder Gulati for a sum of ₹ 6554/- then presumption would be that other shares have also been transferred at the same value. However, it is well settled law that presumption, what-so-ever may be strong but same cannot take place of proof. It is also admitted fact that assessee did not have any transaction with Shri Surinder Gulati or any of his family members. The assessee had purchased shares from Chadha family and even in search in the case of Chadha family, no material or document was found making any allegation against the assessee.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the light of the findings of ld. CIT(Appeals), particularly when the additions have been deleted in the case of Shri Surinder Gulati and the matter has reached finality, nothing survive in favour of the revenue to make any addition against the assessee. In the absence of any evidence on record against the assessee, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deleting the addition. No error have been pointed out in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). The contention of ld. DR have no force that when one transaction is conducted at the same rate, the same rate should be applied in other cases. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal
-
2016 (2) TMI 1103 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Following substantial question of law arises for determination:
Whether in light of the decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CIT (2015 (12) TMI 634 - DELHI HIGH COURT) the ITAT was justified in holding that there was an international transaction between the Assessee and its Associated Enterprise with regard to advertising, marketing and publicity (AMP) expenses and in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arms length price of such transaction for the purposes of transfer pricing adjustment?
-
2016 (2) TMI 1101 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Absence of proof of issuance of notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act - virtue of section 42 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Held that:- There may be a case to be considered under section 42 of the Act, but if we further consider the above referred reasons recorded by the Tribunal, it appears that the attention of the Tribunal has not been brought pertaining to section 42 of the Act, at the time when the matter was heard before the Tribunal. Resultantly, we do not have any discussion whatsoever of the Tribunal in the impugned order for consideration of section 42 of the Act, its applicability or the effect.
If the appellants were to contend and press in service section 42, prevailing at the relevant point of time, it would be for the appellants to move an appropriate application for rectification of the order and it is only after the Tribunal considers the matter and the reasons are recorded, a ground may be available before this court in the appellate jurisdiction.
We are not inclined to entertain the appeals, with the observation that in event, if any rectification application is filed by the appellants-Revenue before the Tribunal, the rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain upon and the Tribunal shall pass the order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides and in accordance with law.
............
|
