Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Sea Rose Marines Pvt. Ltd.

2015 (6) TMI 649 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Tribunal's right in reviewing its own order on merits - Held that:- If the order has been passed in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, we find no justification to find fault with the order of the Tribunal, that too on the above stated facts. Accordingly, on the first question of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the power vested with the Tribunal under proviso to Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, there is no em .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the Tribunal has considered the same on merits in the light of the decision of this Court in Rathore Brothers case (2001 (10) TMI 72 - MADRAS High Court) holding that the losses of the carton division do not have to be set off to arrive at business profits for the calculation of benefit u/s 80 HHC on the ground that the assessee maintained separate accounts and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appeals filed by the assessee/respondent, the appellant/Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeals. This Court, vide order dated 24.3.08, while admitting the appeals, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- "1) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in reviewing its own order on merits? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the losses of the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ately. Aggrieved over the said assessment, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (Appeals). However, the CIT (Appeals) on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in DCIT - Vs - IPCA Laboratories (266 ITR 521), reworked the amount of tax and since a negative figure was arrived at, issued a show cause notice to the assessee and after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing, passed an order of enhancement of the assessment holding that the assessee was not entitled to any benefit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d a fresh order without referring to its earlier and decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the judgment of this Court in CIT - Vs - Rathore Brothers (2002 (254) ITR 656 (Mad.)). Aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the appellant/Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeals. 4. Mr.Narayanasamy, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Department submitted that the Tribunal erred in reviewing its own order, without adverting to the fact that it had taken a di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

taken into consideration as could be seen from Section 80AB of the Act, which has been given an overriding effect over all other sections in Chapter VIA. It is the further submission of the learned standing counsel that the decision of this Court in Rathore Brothers (supra) relied on by the Tribunal is on a different set of facts and is not applicable to the present case. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue, on the aforesaid plea, prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 5. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t/assessee. Thereafter, the assessee/respondent filed two applications, viz., A. Nos.45 and 46/2006 and the Tribunal, in exercise of powers conferred on it by the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, more particularly the proviso to Rule 24 therein, recalled the order on the plea of failure to issue proper notice to the appellant. Thereafter, final order was passed on 4.4.07 considering the issue on merits. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is extracted hereinbelow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see in view of the amended provisions as amended by the Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the provisos have been added to Section 80HHC (3) (a) (ii) with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1998. In view of this, this issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer as mentioned above." 7. From a reading of the order, it is clear that on the two issues raised, with regard to one of the issue, the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and with regard to the other issue, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version