TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing has been accepted by the department upto the Assessment Year 1990- 91. Appeal of revenue is also cannot be accepted as the tax effect in the present appeal would be only Rs.5.69 lacs & the Revenue cannot to file appeals under Section 260A in cases where the tax effect is less than Rs.10/- lacs - in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 987 OF 2000 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2012 - S J Vazifdar And M S Sanklecha, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. D K Kamwal For Respondent : Mr. K Shivaram along with Mr. Ajay Singh, Ms. Renu Choudhari i/by K Gopal P K Parida JUDGEMENT Per : M S Sanklecha, J : This appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) seeks to chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its return of income filed for the Assessment Year 1986-87 the respondent had claimed that scrap generated and sold from the breaking of ships was in the aggregate of 7144 metric tons and out of which 0.81% i.e. 57.95 metric tons was non ferrous metal. The Assessing officer while determining the respondent's income for the Assessment Year 1986-87 by an order dated 30th March, 1989 was of the view that the non ferrous metal which was generated and sold was 2% of the total recovery of scrap i.e. 142.88 metric tons and for this purpose the Assessing officer relied upon the scrap generated by the three other ship breaking units being assessed by him. Consequently, the Assessing Officer concluded that the excess non ferrous metal as determined b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween 0.90% to 1.40% of non ferrous scrap being generated out of the total scrap on the activity of ship breaking has been accepted by the department upto the Assessment Year 1990- 91.The Advocate for the respondent-assessee points out that even for subsequent assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97, generation of non ferrous scrap at 0.81% had been accepted by the department. 4) The finding of the ITAT is one of fact and the same cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial question of law therefore, arises for the determination by this Court. 5) It must also be pointed out that though we have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on merits, the appeal itself would not be entertainable as the tax effect in the present appeal would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
