TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the assessee on the merits. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. - ITA No. 359 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal and Mr. Amit Rawal, JJ. Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. The appellant-revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 12.01.2017, Annexure A.7, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 1203/CHD/2016, for the assessment year 2010-11, claiming following substantial question of law:- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and set aside the assessment order with a direction to enhance income of the assessee by ₹ 19.70 crores by making addition of ₹ 12.67 crores on account of apportionment of expenses against exempted income under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer on 07.11.2014, Annexure A.4, and further addition of ₹ 12,67,00,000/- was made under Section 14A of the Act, in compliance to the order under Section 263 of the Act dated 18.03.2014 passed by the CIT. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 09.01.2015 passed by the CIT(A), confirming addition of ₹ 7,03,49,029/-, the assessee filed an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings in pursuance to the order under Section 263 of the Act had become infructuous and no addition could be made against the assessee. Hence, the instant appeal by the revenue before this Court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. 4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the issue involved in the present case stands concluded against the revenue in ITA No. 270 of 2016, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala decided on 27.02.2017 wherein after considering the relevant provision and the case law on the point, it was recorded as under:- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we notice that the issue on merits has been decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
