9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year and that the said requirement need not be satisfied in the subsequent assessments? (ii) Whether the impugned order dated 1.3.2004 could be validly made having regard to the fact that one of the members of the Tribunal who was a party to the said order had retired before the said date?" 2. As far as the substantive question i.e. with respect to permissibility of the deduction under Section 80-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), the ITAT's decision for other years, i.e. A.Y. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 were subject matter of other orders made by the ITAT (20.06.2008 for two years, 17.08.2007, 28.03.2005 and 05.09.2008 respectively). Those became the subject matter of appeals before this Court i.e. ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 in the other appeals (Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s International Tractors Ltd., ITA No.1082/2005 and connected appeals noticed earlier). 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue/appellant urged that on the merits the Court has to resolve whether in fact the Commissioner could be faulted for issuing the order under Section 263 of the Act because for the first year i.e. A.Y. 1997- 98, the deduction under Section 80-1A of the Act had not been claimed by the assessee. It was contended that for the subsequent years too the assessee could not claim such status given the nature of its investment. 6. It is pointed out on behalf of the assessee, on the other hand, that the common judgment of this Court in M/s International Tractors Ltd. (supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 11th July, 2003 passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act for AY 1999-00. However, relevant to AY 1998-99, the factual determination by the CIT(A) and the ITAT is that the Assessee did fulfil the eligibility condition. The total investment in P&M was worked out to be Rs. 41.19 lacs. This fact has not been controverted by the Revenue. ***** ***** ***** 63. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Courts as discussed hereinbefore, the Court is unable to accept the plea of the Revenue in the present case that: (i) The Assessee here did not fulfil the eligibility condition for the initial AY i.e., 1997-98; and (ii) That notwithstanding that it may have fulfilled the eligibility conditions in the initial AY, it neve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
