TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining the permissible deduction under section 32 AB of the Act. The notice was issued by the CIT under section 263 of the said Act on 21.02.1994 when, the aforesaid legal position was admittedly enuring for the benefit of the assessee. Therefore, on the date the CIT issued the show cause notice, the legal position which obtained supported the view taken by CIT (A) in its order dated 07.08.1992. In these circumstances, the issuance of show cause notice to the respondent/assessee was uncalled for. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.39/1999 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2011 - MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Amit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the taxable income was reduced. 4. The CIT while making a scrutiny of the assessment record, found that the enhancement in the said deduction had been accorded in favour of the respondent/assessee by inclusion in the profits and gains from business "other income" amounting to Rs.4,14,06,000/- (as mentioned in Schedule K of its balance sheet). In the opinion of the CIT, the approach adopted was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent/assessee dated 21.02.1994 under section 263 of the Act in respect of the same. 5. The respondent/assessee filed a response to the show cause notice. After hearing the respondent/assessee, the CIT passed an order on 25.03.1994 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to interest of revenue. Consequently, if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law, which resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. 8. If the aforesaid parameters are applied in respect of factual matrix of the present case, it is found that the view which was prevalent at the appropriate point in time was that of the Tribunal at Delhi taken in the case of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Northern India Theatres Pvt. Ltd. and in Indian Transfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
