TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emitted to it by order dated 11th December 2008 passed by this Court? (ii) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, was the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act for the AYs 1997-98 to 2000-01 and 2002-03, valid? (iii) Was the ITAT right in holding the licence fee payable to the Railways to be an accrued liability? - ITA 934/2011 & CM 6767/2012, ITA 935/2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question urged in its appeals is whether the licence fee payable by the Assessee to the Railways is an accrued liability? 3. However, as far as the Assessee is concerned, while he succeeded on the above issue before the ITAT, his grievance is that the ITAT has in the impugned order dated 31st July 2009 incorrectly understood the scope of the remand of the matter to it by the earlier order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are listed with the above appeals of the Revenue. 5. On 11th January 2012, the Court framed the following question in the Revenue s appeal: Whether the order dated 31st July, 2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is in conformity with and decides all aspects/issues remitted to them vide order dated 11th December, 2008 passed by the High Court and whether the tribunal was right in holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then have to be remanded to the ITAT to decide the issue that has been omitted to be decided viz., the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. The other possible response is that since the matter has already been remanded once to the ITAT, instead of again remanding it to the ITAT, this Court should itself decide the said issue. 9. Having heard learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
