TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh, Junior Standing counsel And Mr. Shikhar Garg,Advocate. ORDER 1. These appeals by the Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) are directed against the common order dated 10th March 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA Nos. 6199 and 6200/Del/1997 for the Assessment Years ( AYs ) 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. 2. In both the appeals, the questions of law already stand framed by the Court. As far as ITA No. 493 of 2003 is concerned, by the order dated 14th January 2004, the following question was framed: What would be the date for recko ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Punjab Chemical Corp. Protection Ltd.[2015] 231 Taxman 312. Reference is also made to the background to the insertion of Section 244A in the Act, as well as to Circular No. 549 dated 31st October 1989 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ). 6. From the side of the Revenue, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2014] 42 Taxmann. com 1(SC) and of the DB of this Court the CIT v. Engineers India Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 377(Del.) 7. It must be noticed that the questions that arose for consideration both in Sutlej Industries (supra) for AY 1998-99 and Engineers India Ltd. (supra) were identical to the issues that arise in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases or in the earlier case involving the same Assessee for AY 1998-99, viz. CIT-III v. Sutlej Industries Ltd. (supra) one way or the other. The larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) remanded the matters which were placed before it to the concerned Benches for decision. It is noticed that the Revenue s appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in Sutlej Industries (supra) for AY 1998-99 is still shown as pending. Consequently, the Court is of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) not having answered the questions that arise one way or the other, cannot itself be the justification for distinguishing the earlier decision of the DB of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
