Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (8) TMI 716

to ensure that the State takes a consistent view and decisions on any issue which are already taken by this Court would be informed to their Advocates who would also be continuously updated of the decisions taken by this Court on the questions of law. This is to ensure that there is consistency in the view taken by this Court. However, it appears that the Revenue has not carried out the assurance which was made to the Court. - On the next occasion, we would expect a proper response from the Revenue and explanation as to why assurance given to us earlier that consistent view would be taken by the Revenue is not being followed. It is time, responsibility is fixed and the casual approach of the Revenue in prosecuting its appeals is stopped .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bombay). (ii) In the above view, Question no.1 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 4. Regarding Question no.2, (i) Mr. Mohanty fairly invites our attention to the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Mumbai V/s. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1873 of 2013) renderred on 26th July, 2016 and in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III V/s. M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Income Tax Appeal No.1037 of 2014) renderred on 6th December, 2016 dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this very question of law. Inspite of the above, in the subsequent case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. M/s. Milton's Pvt. Limited (Income Tax Appeal No. 230 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

in M/s. Hindustan Unilever (supra) at the time , the Court admitted the appeals by M/s. Milton (P) Ltd. (supra) and Confidence Petroleum (I) Ltd. (supra) was not pointed out to the Court. Besides, at the hearing of the appeal of Hindustan Unilever (supra) the fact that Income Tax Appeals No. 841 and 842 of 2011 were already admitted was not pointed out. (iii) We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. (iv) This is not for the first time that this has happened on the part of the Revenue. On an earlier occasion also, in the case of The Commissioner of Income Ta .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Ltd. Mr. Mohanty is directed to produce a copy of the same on the next occasion. We would also want, Mr. Mohanty on the next occasion to bring on record by Affidavit, whether appeals have been filed from the orders of this Court in Hindustan Unilever (supra) decided on 26th July, 2016 and Arch Fine Chemicals (supra) decided on 6th December, 2016 to the Apex Court, when filed and the decision, if any, thereon. 5. We adjourn the hearing of both these appeals by a period of 3 weeks as prayed for by Mr. Mohanty, for the Revenue. 6. On the next occasion, we would expect a proper response from the Revenue and explanation as to why assurance given to us earlier that consistent view would be taken by the Revenue is not being followed. It is time, .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||