9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None ORDER Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 16-09-2011 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad for assessment year 2008-09. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is transpired from records that the notice has been duly served upon the assessee. In view of the fact that the notice is duly served upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow-cause as to why ₹ 11,40,085/- should not be disallowed. In response thereto, the assessee made a detailed reply and one of the submission of the assessee was that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) has been amended with effect from assessment year 2008-09, and accordingly would apply retrospectively looking to the intention behind amendment in this Section. However, the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the authorities below. The issue involved in the present appeal has now been decided by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgin Creators in GA No.3200/2011 dated 23-11-2011 against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.2404/Mum/2009 in order dated 12-09-2011 has taken a view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
