TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 'B', Chandigarh passed in ITA No. 751/Chd/2004 dt. 31st Oct., 2007 in respect of asst. yr. 1999-2000, proposing to raise following substantial question of law : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the payment made to PSEB on account of extra charges being penalty paid as c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Cables (India) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of the assessee. Since the claim of the assessee in the case of Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. (supra) has been held not to be in the nature of penalty, we respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. (supra) hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... z Abdul Shakoor Brothers vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC), Malwa Vanaspati Chemical Co. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 137 : (1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC), Parkash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 111 CTR (SC) 389 : (1993) 201 ITR 684 (SC). The test has to be applied from case to case. 4. Since the Tribunal has followed an order of this Court, which is not shown to be different, we are unable to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
