9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax) under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, consequent upon the rejection of their application made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal by their common order dated July 9, 1997, passed in R.A Nos. 44, 45 and 46/Ind/1997 which in turn arise out of I.T.A. Nos. 326, 632 and 895/Ind/1992 for the assessment year 1989-90. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri D.K. Chhabra, learned counsel for the assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are of the view that these two applications deserve to be allowed. In all the three cases, the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken note of on the question involved though holding the field rendered by the Supreme Court, the so-called conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee cannot be countenanced. Fourthly, simply placing reliance on some decision of the Tribunal rendered on July 7, 1994 in I.T.A. Nos. 891, 432 and 969/Ind/1992, without even mentioning the facts of that case and ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court amounts to showing disrespect to institution and, lastly, the casual and most slipshod manner in which the highest Tribunal in tax matters has decided the case to say the least cannot be upheld by the High Court except to express the strong disapproval to what is called "brevity" in deciding the cases/appeals. We may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt is a question of law. It is required to be decided depending upon the nature of the amount. Such issues, therefore, need to be examined by the High Court as questions of law on the merits. It is for all these reasons, we are constrained to set aside the order dated July 9, 1997 passed in R.A Nos. 44, 45 and 46 of 1997, referred supra. The next submission of learned counsel for the assessee was that I.T.R. No. 17 of 1998, between the same parties has already been decided against the Revenue by this court on July 31, 2002, hence, these applications be also dismissed keeping in view the order so passed. We do not agree. We have perused the order passed by this court on July 31, 2002 in I.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the applications are allowed. The Tribunal is directed to send the statement of case on all the three cases which are the subject-matter of these applications on the following questions of law. Needless to say, care must be taken to narrate the full facts in detail, duly supported by all annexures/documents including the unreported decisions of the Tribunal on which the reliance was placed for deciding the issue involved: "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that royalty received by an assessee for the years in question was capital receipt and not a revenue receipt? 2. In the absence of any discussion, on the facts of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
