TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d - D.B. IT APPEAL NOS. 23 AND 129 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2011 - DINESH MAHESHWARI AND KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI, JJ. K.K. Bissa for the Appellant. Anjay Kothari for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. These two income-tax appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax, 1961 preferred by the Revenue against the different orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur for different assessment years but in relation to the same assessee and involving identical questions of law, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. These appeals were admitted on the following identical questions of law:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nearest and latest and applicable on facts, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wholly wrong in adopting this course or was legally not justified in doing so simply because it might have been possible, or might be more appropriate to follow the other set of judgments by following the other line of reasoning. The Court, however, made it clear that it was not being decided as to whether in such circumstances, the questioned receipts would be revenue receipts or capital asset. The relevant operative part of the judgment reads as under:- "13. In that view of the matter, what we are required to consider is, as to whether the Tribunal was legally justified in not applying the judgment rendered in Tuticorin's case ( supra ), or that, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15. We may make it clear here, that we should not be understood to be deciding the question of law, as to whether, in such circumstances, the receipt would be revenue receipt or capital asset. In that view of the matter, the questions, as framed, are also decided in favour of the assessee, and against revenue, and the appeal is dismissed." 5. The decision rendered in the similar appeal involving identical questions, obviously, covers the questions formulated in the present appeals too and there appears no reason for taking any view different from the one taken by the co-ordinate Bench. 6. Accordingly, and as a result of the aforesaid, the questions as formulated in the present appeals are answered against the Revenue and in fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
